Opinion ID: 1187300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Necessary to Decision

Text: Romero contends that the State should have raised the fact of its paramount title in the foreclosure suit, and its failure to do so bars the State from raising it now. This is not true since collateral estoppel does not require a party to raise all possible issues in a prior proceeding to prevent a bar to their subsequent litigation. Town of Atrisco v. Monohan, supra . The question is whether in a foreclosure suit, title to the property must be determined. A foreclosure action is used to establish the priority of various liens; it does not necessarily litigate title to land. `[W]hat is termed a foreclosure suit is only a proceeding for the legal determination of the existence of the lien, the ascertainment of its extent, and the subjection to sale of the estate pledged for its satisfaction. Upon the validity and extent of that lien the owner of the estate, whether mortgagor or his grantee, has a right to be heard, and no valid decree for the sale of the estate can pass until this right has been afforded to him.' Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co., 182 Cal. 616, 189 P. 1073, 1077 (1920) (quoting Boggs v. Hargrave, supra , cited as Boggs v. Fowler, 16 Cal. 560 (1860)). Also, the effect of a foreclosure decree need not affect the rights of those holding superior or adverse titles even if they are made defendants in the foreclosure suit. 2 Freeman, Judgments, supra § 700; Freeman, Void Judicial Sales, supra § 4a. This is especially true if the issue was not actually litigated as discussed supra. This rule is applicable in situations where a general allegation is made that the defendants claim some interest in the premises but that such interest, if any, is subsequent and subordinate to plaintiff's interest. Such was the allegation made by Norheim against the State; an allegation was never made that the State may have an interest due to the purchase contract with Elder, as was made in this suit. The fact that the State was present in Norheim through representation by the Property Appraisal Department does not bind the Commissioner of Public Lands so as to defeat the paramount title the Commissioner now asserts. One who is made a party defendant to a suit to foreclose a    lien may have an interest in the premises in two or more capacities, and may sometimes be bound in one capacity without being affected in the other. 2 Freeman, Judgments, supra § 880 at 1859; See Freeman, Void Judicial Sales, supra § 50a. While the Property Appraisal Department of the State is bound by the Norheim judgment, the Commissioner is not. We hold that the State's title was not actually litigated; the only interest litigated was that of the State's tax department, an interest which was invalid. The foreclosure action merely established the priority of the liens against this property. Therefore, the district court erred in granting Romero's summary judgment on the basis of estoppel. Inasmuch as we have disposed of the case on the issues discussed, we need not pass upon the other issues raised in the appeal. This cause is remanded to the district court to enter judgment quieting title in the State. IT IS SO ORDERED. EASLEY, C.J., SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE, J., concur. FEDERICI, J., not participating.