Belloso v. Lindberg

Belloso v. Lindberg

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Elenilson Alfonso Belloso,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Deonne Lindberg, LDS Family Services, and Does I-V,

Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040012-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 17, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 132

 

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable Gary D. Stott

Attorneys: Delano S. Findlay, Murray, and Jeffrey M. Gallup, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

David M. McConkie and Merrill F. Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Orme.

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge:

    On April 9, 2002, Appellant Elenilson Alfonso Belloso filed a paternity action against Appellee Deonne Lindberg in Fourth District Court. On September 11, 2002, Belloso entered into a Stipulation for Dismissal of his paternity action with prejudice. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed this action with prejudice on September 16, 2002. Upon dismissal of this paternity action, the adoptive parents obtained a Decree of Adoption. On August 20, 2003, Belloso filed another paternity action against both Lindberg and LDS Family Services, which was dismissed with prejudice on the alternative grounds of res judicata and equitable estoppel. Belloso challenges this dismissal. We affirm.

    For the claim preclusion branch of res judicata to apply, three requirements must be met:

"First, both cases must involve the same parties or their privies. Second, the claim that is alleged to be barred must have been presented in the first suit or must be one that could and should have been raised in the first action. Third, the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits."

Press Publ'g, Ltd. v. Matol Botanical Int'l, Ltd., 2001 UT 106,¶19, 37 P.3d 1121 (quoting Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93,¶20, 16 P.3d 1214).

    First, Belloso's current action involves the same parties, or their privies, as his prior paternity action. "The legal definition of a person in privity with another, is a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right." Id. at ¶20 (quotations and citations omitted). The subject matter of this litigation is Belloso's alleged paternal rights to the adopted child. Lindberg relinquished legal custody and control of the child to LDS Family Services in order to place the child with the adoptive parents. As such, the legal interests of Lindberg and LDS Family Services are identical with regard to the paternity claims Belloso has asserted.

    Second, Belloso's current action involves the same claim or cause of action as his prior action. In both actions, Belloso asserted his alleged paternal rights as a basis to prevent or invalidate the adoption. Belloso's argument that his tort claims are separate from his paternity claim is without merit because by voluntarily dismissing his paternity claims in the prior action, he waived any right to damages by virtue of his paternity.

    Third, Belloso's prior paternity action resulted in a final judgment on the merits. As we stated in Office of Recovery Services v. V.G.P., 845 P.2d 944 (Utah Ct. App. 1992), "[t]he fact that the court based its original decree of paternity on a stipulation does not change our holding because claim preclusion applies to consent judgments." Id. at 946. Belloso does not dispute that the dismissal of his prior paternity action is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion, but merely argues that he did not authorize his prior attorney to dismiss it. However, Belloso's current complaint contains no allegation that dismissal of his prior action was not authorized. Because this case was decided on a rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, we do not consider factual allegations outside the complaint. See Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b); Ho v. Jim's Enters., Inc., 2001 UT 63,¶5 n.5, 29 P.3d 633. Thus, the third requirement for claim preclusion has been met. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge