## Facts

- Roger Holtman owned a condominium unit in the Edgewater Townhouse complex in Missoula, Montana.
- The homeowners’ association determined repairs were needed and authorized 4-G’s Plumbing & Heating, Inc. to enter Holtman’s unit to repair a leak and install a new heating system.
- Holtman resisted the association’s attempts to access the unit and perform the work.
- In prior litigation between the association and Holtman over access and work, Holtman asserted counterclaims (including asbestos contamination and invasion of privacy) that were dismissed with prejudice.
- Holtman later sued the association and 4-G’s for trespass, invasion of privacy, and asbestos contamination arising from the attempted repair/installation work.
- The district court granted summary judgment to 4-G’s on the asbestos claim, ruling it was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the dismissal of Holtman’s counterclaims in the earlier association litigation.
- Holtman appealed only the application of preclusion doctrines to his asbestos-contamination claim against 4-G’s.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata barred Holtman’s asbestos-contamination claim against 4-G’s based on the earlier litigation between Holtman and the homeowners’ association.
2. Whether collateral estoppel barred Holtman from pursuing the asbestos-contamination claim against 4-G’s on the theory that the relevant asbestos/negligence issues were resolved (or could have been resolved) in the earlier litigation.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for 4-G’s and remanded.
- Res judicata did not apply because 4-G’s was not a party to the earlier action and was not in privity with the homeowners’ association for purposes of claim preclusion.
- Collateral estoppel did not apply because the specific issue of 4-G’s negligence and liability for asbestos contamination was not actually litigated and necessarily decided in the earlier case.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata requires, among other elements, identity of parties or privity; a nonparty is not bound absent a qualifying privity relationship.
- Privity for claim preclusion requires a sufficiently close legal relationship such that it is fair to bind the nonparty to the prior judgment; mere “acting in concert” or the fact of being retained/authorized by a party is insufficient without more.
- Collateral estoppel applies only to issues that were identical, actually litigated, and necessarily determined in a prior final judgment, with a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
- Dismissal of claims against one actor does not, by itself, establish issue preclusion as to a different actor’s negligence when that actor’s conduct and liability were not adjudicated.

## Conclusion

The court held that preclusion doctrines could not bar Holtman’s asbestos-contamination claim against the contractor where the contractor was neither a party nor a privy to the prior homeowners’ association litigation and the contractor’s negligence and liability were not actually litigated and decided in that earlier case.


Holtman v. 4-G’s Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 264 Mont. 432 (1994)