Quote Quoting latigo
View Post

The law does not permit the splitting causes of action and trying lawsuits piecemeal. In such case the first action may be pleaded in abatement of the subsequent suit. (Vol. 1 C. J. S. Section 102 p. 1306)
This is not the splitting of a cause of action. It is a separate cause of action for rent and damage that could not have been included in the first lawsuit because they could not have been quantified until the tenant was out.

In Strekal v. Espe the court wrote:

Res judicata is the doctrine of claim preclusion. Byrd v. People, 58 P.3d 50, 53 n. 3 (Colo.2002). The doctrine bars claims that were litigated, or could have been litigated, in an earlier action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 350, 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1973). Under this doctrine, a final judgment is considered conclusive in any subsequent litigation that involves (1) the same claim for relief, (2) the same subject matter, and (3) the same parties or those in privity with them. Foley Custom Homes, Inc. v. Flater, 888 P.2d 363, 364 (Colo.App.1994).
The word "and" requires that all three elements be met. A second lawsuit would involve the same subject matter (landlord-tenant issue) and the same parties (OP and his tenant) but it does not include the same claim for relief.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=en&as_sdt=4,6