Opinion ID: 1969303
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Issue of Paternity was Raised and Litigated in the First Action

Text: The district court held that Fellmer failed to meet the second prong of our Hunter test (issue not raised and litigated). Fellmer first notes the issue of paternity was raised by Casas' 1975 petition. Fellmer further contends the issue was litigated by virtue of his compromise with Casas and the subsequent approval of that compromise by the court. The State contends that in order for an issue to be litigated it must be put to proof at trial. The State relies on our decision in Jordan v. Stewart Creamery, Inc., 258 Iowa 1, 11, 137 N.W.2d 259, 265 (1965), to support its position. In that case, we stated [f]or collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] to apply, the particular matter must have been considered and passed upon. It, therefore, cannot apply unless there is an actual trial. Id. However, since our decision in Jordan, we have modified this standard. In In re Evans, 267 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1978), we dealt with the question of whether a county could litigate the issue of paternity when the issue was earlier determined in a child support modification proceeding. In Evans, the district court had modified the original dissolution decree that obligated the husband to pay child support. The modification order based on a stipulation of the parties, stated that the child was not the husband's and ordered that he shall not be obligated to pay child support. Id. at 50. Later, the County Board of Welfare attempted to collect child support through garnishment proceedings. In those proceedings the district court vacated the prior modification order. On appeal, we reversed the district court's vacation of the modification decree and paternity determination on the ground of issue preclusion. Id. at 51. We held the county had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of paternity in the modification proceeding. Id. In Mulkins v. Board of Supervisors, 374 N.W.2d 410, 415 (Iowa 1985), we held that issue preclusion prohibits parties from relitigating issues in a subsequent action that were conclusively determined in a prior action in which a judgment was entered. In Buckingham v. Federal Land Bank Association, 398 N.W.2d 873, 876 (Iowa 1987), we held that issue preclusion is applicable when parties dismiss their cases with prejudice. Thus, the existence of a full-blown trial is not prerequisite to applying the doctrine of issue preclusion. It is enough that the issue be conclusively determined in a prior action in which judgment is entered. Mulkins, 374 N.W.2d at 415. The case at bar is nearly identical to the facts in Evans. See Evans, 267 N.W.2d at 48-51. We believe the issue was litigated when the court approved the compromise in which Casas agreed that Fellmer was not Lisa's father. The facts of this case therefore satisfy the second element of the Hunter formulation.