Opinion ID: 885427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 16 Did the court err in dismissing Greenup's complaint pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata ? ¶ 17 The determination that a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a conclusion of law. This Court's standard of review of a ruling dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim is whether the court's interpretation of the law was correct. Hollister v. Forsythe (1996), 277 Mont. 23, 26-27, 918 P.2d 665, 667. ¶ 18 Res judicata exists when the parties or their privies are the same; the subject matter of the claim is the same; the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter; and the capacities of the persons are the same in reference to the subject matter and the issues. Hollister, 277 Mont. at 27, 918 P.2d at 667. The doctrine of res judicata bars not only issues previously litigated, but also issues which could have been litigated in the prior proceeding. Hollister, 277 Mont. at 27, 918 P.2d at 667. ¶ 19 In this appeal, Greenup's argument on this issue is based on his contention that the default judgment entered against him was unjust. We have considered that question above. ¶ 20 The issues raised by Greenup in this case relate to ownership and interest held in a particular piece of real estate. The description of the real estate at issue in this action is identical in every respect to the description of the real estate at issue in the previous action. The precise issues, parties, capacities, and subject matter were previously litigated. The judgment in the previous action adjudicates all issues concerning right, title, and interest in the property which is the subject of this appeal. ¶ 21 We hold that the District Court did not err in dismissing Greenup's complaint pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.