Opinion ID: 885266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rafanelli, at 12.

Text: ¶ 16 The same is true under res judicata: the term issue does not equate with the elements of a cause of action. We have held that the doctrine of res judicata bars not only the issues litigated in the former action, but also issues which might have been litigated in the former action. Mills v. Lincoln County, 262 Mont. 283, 286, 864 P.2d 1265, 1267 (1993). A judgment is binding and conclusive between all the parties to the suit and their privies and successors in interest, as to all matters adjudicated therein and as to all issues which could have been properly raised irrespective of whether the particular matter was in fact litigated. Orlando v. Prewett, 236 Mont. 478, 481, 771 P.2d 111, 113 (1989), quoting Kramer v. Deer Lodge Farms Co., 116 Mont. 152, 156, 151 P.2d 483, 484 (1944). ¶ 17 In the present case, the District Court reasoned that the conveyance from the Rennes to the Cowdreys had been a matter of public record since it was filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder on June 25, 1976-before the Rennes delivered the deed to the Halls. The court reasoned that the Halls thus had constructive notice of the Renne/Cowdrey deed, pursuant to § 70-21-302, MCA. Certainly by the time they filed their first District Court action, the Halls could have determined by checking the public record that the easement they sought ran across land previously sold to the Cowdreys. The Halls could have then claimed the easement by necessity or prescription which they now claim in the present action. Therefore, we conclude that the issues and subject matter are the same in this case as those which could have been raised in the Halls' previous District Court action. ¶ 18 We hold that the District Court was correct in ruling that Heckerman was entitled to judgment in this case as a matter of law, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Rule 60(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., motion necessary to reach that decision. We affirm the judgment of the District Court. KARLA M. GRAY, JAMES C. NELSON, TERRY N. TRIEWEILER, and W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JJ., concur.