is one of the affirmative defenses that must be included in the defendant’s answer. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.03. However, in appropriate circumstances, it may be raised in a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion. For a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to be used as a vehicle to assert an affirmative defense, the applicability of the defense must “clearly and unequivocally appear[] 'on the face of the complaint.” Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 404 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Anthony v. Tidwell, 560 S.W.2d 908, 909 (Tenn. 1977)). In other words, the plaintiffs own allegations in the com plaint must show that an affirmative defense exists and that this "defense legally defeats the claim for relief. See Ragsdale v. Hill, 37 Tenn.App. 671, 681, 269 S.W.2d 911, 916 (1954) (<HOLDING>); see also 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred successive lawsuits by siblings asserting the same claims because the doctrine of res judicata bars both parties and their privies from relitigating an issue already decided holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that a demurrer asserting res judicata was improper when the petition being challenged did not mention the prior decree holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity