Court Opinion

ID: 9783621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:52:40.636375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:27.626704
License: Public Domain

NICKELL, Judge,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. I disagree with the majority’s belief that the issue of pa*597ternity was never adjudicated in Culbertson’s two previous bites at the apple. This holding is founded on the mistaken belief that the paternity issue raised in the case at bar had not “ripened” into a justiciable cause of action when the earlier filings were dismissed because Carl was still living at that time. I believe the majority’s position is untenable and would reverse the trial court.
Although Culbertson couched her argument in the instant matter in terms of paternity for purposes of intestate succession, her factual claims were identical to those raised in her two earlier, unsuccessful actions — that Carl was her biological father. Through its careful choice of words and hypertechnical analysis, the majority has invalidated nearly twenty years of litigation, including two previous Opinions of this Court. As the majority notes, claim preclusion requires three elements. I believe all are present here.
First, there is an identity of cause of action. Paternity was clearly raised in Culbertson’s prior actions and was foundational to all of the claims raised in each of her three civil actions. In each, without a finding of paternity, Culbertson could not prevail.
Next, both of Culbertson’s previous actions were dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02 and 41.02(3), such a dismissal operates as a dismissal on the merits for which the doctrine of res judi-cata attaches.
Finally, there is an identity of the parties. The majority asserts the Estate, Carla, and Bradley were never parties to the previous litigation, thus precluding a finding of identity of the parties and ultimately a finding of res judicata. However, although not specifically named in the 1993 or 1994 actions, these three parties stand in Carl’s shoes as his heirs, legatees, devisees, and beneficiaries at law and are his “privies.” Yeoman, 983 S.W.2d at 464. If followed to its logical conclusion, the majority’s view would preclude a finding of res judicata on any matter previously decided if a party died and his estate or heirs were named in a later suit in his stead. I cannot countenance such a view.
For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court and remand for entry of an order dismissing the action on grounds of res judicata.