mention of the funds at issue from his final report, the receiver effectively abandoned this claim. We cannot condone the secrecy with which Misencik ordered the transfer of the funds at issue. That being said, however, Bank One was well aware of the transfer by the time the court approved the receiver's final report. In fact, Bank One took two depositions in the foreclosure action in which it focused on this precise subject. Thus, Bank One could-and should-have objected to the omission of any mention of the disputed funds in the receiver's final report. Having failed to object, however, it is "forever barred" from raising these claims against the Appellants. IC. § 82-80-5-18(b);, see also Mut. Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. Bachten-kircher, 209 Ind. 106; 115, 198 N.E. 81, 85 (Ind.1985) (<HOLDING>). Bank One contends that its claims against the
holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented arbitrators order showing issue had been litigated holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented supreme court opinion showing issue had been litigated holding prior order was interlocutory and subject to change at any time because all claims not yet litigated holding that all matters litigated or which could have been litigated in al foreclosure action are forever at rest  holding that trial by consent requires that the parties actually recognize the issue to have been litigated