2 Va. App. Appellant was given a month's notice of the hearing. The notice informed her that the hearing would address her liability for the bank note, including accumulated interest. Because appellant was dilatory in her efforts to obtain an attorney, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to continue the case. The court did not err in deciding that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar appellee from seeking indemnity from appellant for any sum he had to pay on the note that his wife had been ordered to pay.
Collateral estoppel applies to the same issue litigated in a different cause of action.
Collateral estoppel precludes parties from raising an issue that was actually litigated and essential to a valid and final personal judgment in the earlier cause of action. The party asserting collateral estoppel has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that the precise issue he seeks to preclude was raised and determined in the first action. The appellant claims that this constituted a judgment that the parties were jointly responsible for the debt under the property agreement. In order to make that conclusion on this record, we must so speculate, which we may not do. Therefore, the appellant has not met her burden of proof.