Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While the majority may be correct that the trial court erred in determining that res judicata was applicable in this case, I believe the court was correct in granting summary judgment in this matter. As the majority points out,
the Franklin Circuit Court’s determination that the Morrow survey established the boundary .in the prior action and should serve as a basis for sustaining the motion of Plattner and Patterson for summary judgment. In the prior action, the Morrow survey was found to be *252controlling as to the boundary between the 0.55 acre tract (with easement) and the Harrod 1 parcel, and the circuit court in the instant matter found that it naturally follows that the Morrow survey should be controlling as to the Har-rod 2 tract as well.
The majority then goes on to state, “[t]he additional issues raised by Harrod, such as the effect of the countervailing affidavit of surveyor Maffet, and the issue of privity, are moot.” Having so found, there are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined and summary judgment is appropriate. While the trial court addressed the issue of res judicata throughout its “discussion” section of the opinion and order, in the “conclusion” portion it finds that the boundary line between the parties (including both the Harrod 1 tract and the Har-rod 2 tract) has already been determined by prior court orders. It then grants summary judgment. While the discussion as to res judicata may not be applicable, the finding that the boundary line has been determined and is a final determination— not subject to change — is controlling. No material issue of fact is subject to relitigation and summary judgment is appropriate. I dissent and would affirm the Franklin Circuit Court’s opinion and order, although for a different reason than that “discussed” by the trial court.