Opinion ID: 1193732
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Res judicata (claim preclusion)

Text: The superior court dismissed Debra's tort action in part because she impermissibly split her causes of action. The superior court gave res judicata effect to the Rule 60(b) proceeding, because the prohibition against splitting a cause of action is based on the principles of res judicata. [41] Citing Nelson v. Jones , Debra contends that she did not have to join the tort action into the dissolution action. [42] She implies that the superior court should never have examined whether her two actions were predicated on the same transaction. We stated in Nelson that the principles of res judicata do not require tort claims between married persons to be litigated in their divorce proceedings, because that requirement would hinder the resolution of divorce actions. [43] But Nelson held only that res judicata did not require that interspousal tort claims be joined in the original divorce action. Debra asks us to extend Nelson, and to hold that res judicata does not require that a tort claim be joined in a Rule 60(b) application that seeks relief from the original divorce or dissolution decree. As a result, tort actions filed after a party moves for Rule 60(b) relief would be exempt from the principles of res judicata. In Nelson we approvingly quoted from a Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion identifying reasons why divorce and tort actions should be litigated separately: Although joinder is permissible, the administration of justice is better served by keeping tort and divorce actions separate.... Divorce actions will become unduly complicated if tort claims must be litigated in the same action. A divorce action is equitable in nature and involves a trial to the court. On the other hand, a trial of a tort claim is one at law and may involve, as in this case, a request for a jury trial. Resolution of tort claims may necessarily involve numerous witnesses and other parties such as joint tortfeasors and insurance carriers whose interests are at stake. Consequently, requiring joinder of tort claims in a divorce action could unduly lengthen the period of time before a spouse could obtain a divorce and result in such adverse consequences as delayed child custody and support determinations. The legislature did not intend such a result in enacting the divorce code.[ [44] ] These well-articulated concerns strongly weigh against joint litigation of such claims. We conclude that they apply to a tort action filed after Rule 60(b) relief is sought in a divorce or dissolution matter. We are also persuaded in this case by the difficulty inherent in providing to Debra in the Rule 60(b) proceeding the same rights and remedies she would have been entitled to in her tort action, e.g., a jury trial and an opportunity to seek punitive damages. [45] For these reasons, res judicata does not bar a tort action based on the same claim as a party's prior Rule 60(b) motion.