With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". those consequences are likely to mean that the litigants in the action as framed will, after final judgment therein is entered, be likely to have to engage in additional litigation in order to conclusively dispose of their respective bundles of rights and liabilities which derive from a single transaction or related series of transactions, then the omitted component must be regarded as constituting an element of the minimum mandatory unit of litigation. That result must obtain whether or not that component constitutes either an independent cause of action by technical common-law definition or an independent claim which, in the abstract, is separately adjudicable. [150 N.J.Super. at 293-94, 375 A.2d 675 (emphasis added).] See also Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 434, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Square Brighton

A: holding that marital tort an assault should have been asserted in the prior divorce action
B: holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action
C: holding that wifes tort claims should have been presented in conjunction with the divorce action to lay at rest all their legal differences in one proceeding and avoid the prolongation and fractionalization of litigation
D: holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication
A.