Dear adjuster:

Oddly you are ignoring the very import of your cited authorities; i. e. case law that totally conflict with your argument. (That argument being that the OP is not precluded from bring a second cause of action for a money judgment. )

For instance in Pomeroy v. Waitkus enunciating that one of the decisive factors to be considered in applying the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (claim and issue preclusion - and please note that the doctrines are used interchangeably by the Colorado courts) is:

" . . . did the party against whom the plea is asserted have a full opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior adjudication".

Again in Foley Custom Homes, Inc. v. Flater, 888 P.2d 363, 364 (Colo.App.1994):

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits is considered conclusive in any subsequent litigation involving either the same parties or those in privity with them, the same subject matter, and the same claims for relief. The preclusive effect of the doctrine applies not only to the claims and issues that were actually decided, but also to any claims or issues that could have been raised in the first proceeding. "

And Manka v. Martin, 200 Colo. 260, 614 P.2d 875 (Colo.1980) "The preclusive effect of the doctrine applies not only to the claims and issues that were actually decided, but also to any claims or issues that could have been raised in the first proceeding." Also 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".

Again, Denver v. Block 173 Associates, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo.1991). The preclusive effect of the doctrine applies not only to the claims and issues that were actually decided, but also to any claims or issues that could have been raised in the first proceeding.

The test is not the nature of the cause of action or claim for relief sought to be abated but whether it arises from the same transaction or occurrence. And as your own authorities confirm could have been litigated in an earlier action between the same parties.

Here the same transaction or occurrences that gave rise to the OP's complaint for unlawful detention would be identical to those generating a subsequent lawsuit for a money judgment.

In sum, unless you can show some legal reason as to why the OP could not have properly joined her cause of action for rent with that of her claim for restoration of the rental property and have both claims litigated in the same proceeding then your present argument favoring a subsequent lawsuit is indefensible.

(All emphasis added)

Cordially, lawyer.