Opinion ID: 2632481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Are the Wilsons' claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata or by the doctrine of collateral estoppel?

Text: [¶ 21] The district court's final order contained the following conclusion: 21. Lucerne uses the same diversion and channel it always has, and such use was recognized by the 1990 Consent Decree. Wilsons are precluded by collateral estoppel and res judicata from now challenging that use. [¶ 22] We said the following about res judicata and collateral estoppel in Eklund v. PRI Envtl., Inc., 2001 WY 55, ¶ 15, 25 P.3d 511, 517 (Wyo.2001): Res judicata and collateral estoppel are related but distinct concepts. Res judicata bars the relitigation of previously litigated claims or causes of action. Slavens v. Board of County Commissioners, 854 P.2d 683, 686 (Wyo.1993). Four factors are examined to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies: (1) identity in parties; (2) identity in subject matter; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them. Id. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously litigated issues and involves an analysis of four similar factors: (1) whether the issue decided in the prior adjudication was identical with the issue presented in the present action; (2) whether the prior adjudication resulted in a judgment on the merits; (3) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Id. [¶ 23] The policy justifications for these doctrines will not be reiterated here in detail, and we will note only that their general purpose is to prevent piecemeal litigation, thereby preserving judicial resources. In re Paternity of JRW, 814 P.2d 1256, 1264 (Wyo. 1991). Two features of the doctrines are significant in light of the circumstances of the present case: (1) claim preclusion bars not just issues that were actually litigated in the prior action, but issues that could have been raised in that action; and (2) consent decrees are the equivalent of litigated judgments for purposes of res judicata. In re Big Horn River System, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 52, 85 P.3d 981, 996 (Wyo.2004), overruled in part on other grounds by Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149 (Wyo.1998); Wyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 2002 WY 181, ¶ 12, 60 P.3d 129, 135 (Wyo.2002); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 2002 WY 154, ¶ 12, 55 P.3d 1246, 1251 (Wyo.2002); Eklund v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2004 WY 24, ¶ 14, 86 P.3d 259, 263 (Wyo.2004). Application of the doctrines is a question of law that we review de novo. In re Big Horn River, 2004 WY 21, ¶ 19, 85 P.3d at 987. [¶ 24] We concur with the district court's limited application of res judicata and collateral estoppel in this case. By limited, we mean that our perception of the district court's conclusion is that the very nature of the Consent Decreea recognition of Lucerne's right of access between its headgate and the upper diversion damwas also a recognition of Lucerne's right to transport water between the two points. The latter follows the former by necessary implication. In other words, it was a recognition of Lucerne's right to use the eastern channel. [4] [¶ 25] We cannot say, however, that the 1988 litigation bars the Wilsons' current desire to have the courts quiet title in them to the unpatented riparian lands. The 1988 litigation was fundamentally an access easement controversy. It did not directly implicate ownership of the island, and its issues readily could be resolved short of quieting title to that land. The road at issue traversed the patented lands owned by the Wilsons, not the unpatented and unsurveyed riparian lands that had arisen through natural redirection of the river. We are mindful of the precept that res judicata may bar claims that could have been brought in prior litigation. But the purpose of the doctrine is to enhance judicial economy by limiting litigation, rather than to expand litigation by requiring litigants to conjure up every conceivable issue that might arise with the other party and add it to a complaint, whether presently contested or not. An examination of the cases in which this court has considered the application of the doctrine of res judicata as that rule is precisely defined and its corollary collateral or judicial estoppel leads to the conclusion that the policy in Wyoming has been to apply those propositions rather narrowly. Barrett v. Town of Guernsey, Wyo., 652 P.2d 395 (1982); Roush v. Roush, [589 P.2d 841 (Wyo.1979)]; Bard Ranch Company v. Weber, [557 P.2d 722 (Wyo.1976) ]; Willis v. Willis, 48 Wyo. 403, 49 P.2d 670 (1935); and Cook v. Elmore, 27 Wyo. 163, 192 P. 824 (1920). While those concepts will be invoked when appropriate to avoid repetitious suits involving the same cause of action, and the relitigation of matters actually litigated and determined in the first proceeding, to the end that the concept of finality is honored in litigation in the State of Wyoming, still they are not to be applied in a highly technical manner which would in a context such as this prevent litigants from presenting their claims against others for determination on their merits. Robertson v. TWP, Inc., 656 P.2d 547, 553 (Wyo.1983). The question of whether the Wilsons had gained ownership over the unpatented riparian lands was not so intertwined with the road access question as to require that it be litigated at the same time. Furthermore, the island now exists as a parcel of no-longer-submerged land, and the question of its ownership needs to be resolved.