Ullery v. FULLETON, 256 P.3d 406

In 2002, Rod and Dianne Ullery entered a reclamation agreement with Fulleton Pacific Construction to reclaim three mining claims in exchange for transferring equipment and an interest in the claims upon completion.
Pat Fulleton and Billy Fulleton later agreed that Pat would supply the equipment and Billy would perform the reclamation, with title transfer from the Ullerys to Pat, and then to Billy after completion.
Although substantial work was completed by 2002, the Ullerys refused to quitclaim title, prompting further demand letters and additional services claimed to be required.
In 2004–2005, Billy sued the Ullerys for breach of the reclamation contract, asserting assignment of Pat’s rights; the Ullerys raised lack of standing and failure to join a party, but Pat was not joined.
A 2007 trial court found Billy lacked standing and dismissed with prejudice, after Billy obtained a posttrial assignment from Pat and a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Department confirming satisfaction with the reclamation.
Following that dismissal, the Ullerys filed an ejectment action against Billy and his wife, with Billy and Pat’s respective interests joined as third-party plaintiffs alleging breach; the Ullerys moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court denied at first.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prior action's dismissal was a final judgment on the merits	Ullerys contend the 2005 order resolved merits when standing was rejected and performance issues were addressed.	Fulletons argue the 2005 ruling was a threshold standing decision, not a merits judgment, and thus not preclusive.	No final merits judgment; not preclusive.
Whether the issues in the second action were identical to those in the first action	Ullerys claim privity and identical performance issues render them identical.	Fulletons highlight different assignments and distinct issues of standing vs. performance between actions.	Issues not identical; require reversal.
Whether collateral estoppel applies given lack of standing	Ullerys argue that Pat’s knowledge and privity bind Billy and foreclose relitigation.	Fulletons emphasize lack of standing and the need for a final merits judgment, plus distinguishable claims.	Collateral estoppel does not apply.

Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wash.2d 299 (2004) (defines issue preclusion elements)
State v. Williams, 132 Wash.2d 248 (1997) (requirements for applying issue preclusion)
Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash.2d 905 (2004) (four-element test for issue preclusion)
Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Syst., 109 Wash.2d 107 (1987) (standing-related preclusion principles)
Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542 (1998) (standing and jurisdiction concepts related to res judicata)
Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 138 Wash.2d 9 (1999) (privity and preclusion considerations)
Fleck & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 471 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (standing can deprive court of jurisdiction (illustrative precedence))