by Southern Real Estate Group on its note. But, as we have previously admonished, “privity is not established by the mere fact that persons may happen to be interested in the same question or in proving the same state of facts.” Gaughan v. Spires Council of Co-Owners, 870 S.W.2d 552, 555 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). In its suit against Burchfield, Prosperity did not seek to bind Burchfield to any legal determination from its default judgment against Woodall. Woodall did not answer or defend himself in the prior lawsuit, so he certainly cannot be deemed to have represented Burchfield’s interest there. And, perhaps most importantly, allowing Prosperity to proceed with the underlying suit has not subjected Burchfield to two different lawsuits. See Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 631 (<HOLDING>). While it would have been more efficient for
holding that res judicata precludes relitigation of issue that was or could have been decided in enforcement order that was not appealed holding that res judicata prevents relitigation of a claim that was previously the subject of a valid and final decision of this court holding that the lender liability claims of the debtor are precluded by res judicata holding the relitigation exception was limited to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue holding res judicata applied to prevent relitigation of liability where defendant was subject to two lawsuits under different theories of liability on the same note