all cases involving the conclusiveness of a judgment. It may be said that such privity involves a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right. See 30 Am.Jur. 954, Judgments § 227. In Indiana a privity is one who after rendition of the judgment has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment. T.R. v. A.W., 470 N.E.2d 95 (Ind.App.1984). 4 . The Trustee’s action arises under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and his power as a hypothetical lien creditor and the representative of the estate. If the prior litigation has been brought in Federal Court, the Federal rule of res judicata would apply. See In the Matter of Energy Cooperative, Inc., 814 F.2d 1226 (7th Cir.1987). Compare Thibodeau v. Foremost Ins. Co., 605 F.Supp. 653 (N.D.Ind.1985)
recognizing that state law controls applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel in nondiversity action where prior judgment involved issues of state law holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that state law controls whether issues decided in a prior state court action are entitled to preclusive effect and setting forth the elements of collateral estoppel under washington law holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law