which remains in effect. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Bermudez asserts that the Tribe, although not a party to the tort lawsuit when the case was tried and the first judgment entered, may be added as a party and held liable to pay the damages awarded against Billie and Bert because the Tribe funded and guided Billie and Bert’s defense. Bermudez relies upon three lines of authority in making this argument. The first line of authority relied upon by Bermudez involves issue preclusion. Ber-mudez notes that several cases from outside Florida have held that a person who funded and guided litigation, although not a party, may be estopped from attempting to re-litigate the issues decided in the litigation. See Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Theller v. Hershey, 89 F. 575, 576-77
holding without discussion of gilberg that res judicata applies to facts determined in new york traffic court proceeding holding an executor of will in new york was bound by a decision of a french court as res judicata where the executor had hired counsel and controlled in part the defense in the french court holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary holding that while a decision of the court will not be disturbed because it is law of the case under res judicata the court is not bound by a conclusion stated as obiter dictum