Justice David Schmidt
Sudit moved to renew a prior motion to confirm a referee’s report and granting a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Roth defendants cross-moved for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. The foreclosure action arose from the Roths’ failure to pay Sudit monies owed under a stipulation resolving three actions involving the Roths’ defaults. The court previously denied the motion for a judgment of foreclosure noting co-mortgagees Yelisovetsky and FCV Consultants needed to be joined as necessary parties. It concluded Yelisovetsky had no current interest in the mortgage. Also, Sudit showed that FCV was not a necessary party, submitting a copy of an assignment of its interests to Sudit. The Roths’ claimed Sudit failed to state a cause of action. When a court previously granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, it necessarily found he had a cause of action. Also, the grant of summary judgment was a decision on the merits and entitled to preclusive effect, and became law of the case. Thus, the Roths could not attack the sufficiency of the complaint after the court granted Sudit summary judgment and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. The Roths failed to show grounds warranting denial of Sudit’s renewed motion for a judgment of foreclosure.
