Filter Results

13.3.8.2 Use of One State’s Courts to Enforce Another State’s Judgment

CategoriesCart
Highlight Updates
  1. Collection Actions
  2. Chapters
  3. Chapter 13 Enforcement of Judgments: General Principles, Constitutional Issues
  4. 13.3 Interpretation and Operation of Exemption Laws
  5. 13.3.8 Interstate Enforcement of Judgments
  6. 13.3.8.2 Use of One State’s Courts to Enforce Another State’s Judgment

13.3.8.2 Use of One State’s Courts to Enforce Another State’s Judgment

As noted in the previous section, to reach out-of-state assets the creditor must apply to a court in that other state. The United States Constitution requires the court in that second state to give full faith and credit to the judgment issued by the first state.130

The full faith and credit requirement does not mean that the second state must adopt the practices of the first state regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments: “Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment . . . ; such effects remain subject to the evenhanded control of forum law.”131 So, for example, a creditor that is enforcing a California judgment through the Indiana courts can make use of Indiana collection remedies, not those available in California. If Indiana disallows certain remedies that will be available in California, or gives debtors different protections, the creditor is bound by the Indiana rules.132

A state’s exercise of in rem or in personam jurisdiction must meet due process standards. The person or entity over which the court is exercising jurisdiction must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state that the maintenance of the suit comports with fair play and substantial justice.133 Courts have, however, held that this rule does not require a judgment creditor to obtain in personam jurisdiction over the debtor in order to enforce a judgment in a state other than the one that issued it. Instead, the presence of the debtor’s asset in that second state is sufficient to support jurisdiction.134

To regulate enforcement of one state’s judgment in a second state, most states have adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.135 This Act provides a procedure for registering a judgment in another jurisdiction and initiating execution proceedings on assets located there. The creditor may also have the right to use older procedures, such as filing a new suit on the judgment in the second state.136

Under the uniform act, the judgment creditor must first file an authenticated copy of the judgment with a court in the state where enforcement is sought.137 The creditor must also file an affidavit setting forth the names and last known addresses of the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor.138 The court is then required to send a prompt notice of the filing of the judgment to the judgment debtor at the address given.139 However, the Act provides that, if the creditor mails notice to the judgment debtor and files proof of mailing with the court, any failure of the court to mail the notice does not affect the enforcement proceedings.140 Upon accomplishment of these steps, the creditor can use the same enforcement procedures as would be available for a judgment entered by the courts in that state.141 The uniform law does, however, allow the state to specify a limited time period during which the state’s enforcement procedures would be available.142

Connecticut and New York define “foreign judgment” not to include ones taken by default in appearance, making the Act’s procedures unavailable to enforce such judgments.143 These provisions, added to protect against “sewer service,” have been construed to apply only to cases in which the debtor made no appearance.144 A creditor who is barred from using the streamlined procedure may still bring a common law action on the judgment, at which time the debtor may raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction—for example, by claiming that proper service was never made.145

If the debtor appeals the underlying judgment or obtains a stay from the court that issued it, the stay applies in the enforcing state as well.146 In addition, the debtor can seek a stay or an order reopening or vacating the judgment from the court in the enforcing state, following the same procedures that would apply to a judgment issued by that state’s courts.147

Footnotes

  • 130 U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1.

  • 131 Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 235, 118 S. Ct. 657, 139 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1998). See also Weiss v. Weiss, 100 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (Florida property settlement cannot be enforced by use of contempt power, but Illinois property settlement can; Florida is required to give full faith and credit to Illinois judgment but is not bound to adopt Illinois’s “practices regarding the time, manner and method of enforcing judgments” or to violate Florida public policy barring imprisonment for debt); People’s Nat’l Bank v. Hitchcock, 428 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1980) (once Pennsylvania judgment is registered in New York, New York court can garnish wages of Pennsylvania debtor who works in New York for New York employer even though Pennsylvania does not allow wage garnishment); Caddie Homes, Inc. v. Falic, 235 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1967); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 99 (1971) (“the local law of the forum determines the method by which a judgment of another state is enforced”).

  • 132 Mahl v. Aaron, 809 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); Nagel v. Westen, 865 N.W.2d 325, 340–341 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).

  • 133 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 207, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977); Livingston v. Naylor, 920 A.2d 34, 53 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007). See also Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Lie, 768 F.3d 122, 134 (2d Cir. 2014) (New York courts do not have general (all-purpose) jurisdiction over Chinese bank that has branch in New York but is incorporated and headquartered elsewhere, but may have specific jurisdiction if bank has purposefully directed its activities at forum state and litigation arises out of or relates to those activities; remanding for determination whether specific jurisdiction exists to order bank to identify and freeze assets); Nike, Inc. v. Maria Wu, 349 F. Supp. 3d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (denying banks’ motion to quash subpoenas seeking information about judgment debtors’ accounts; finding that New York had specific jurisdiction over foreign banks that maintained accounts in the state and provided settlement services there for judgment debtors); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ruby, 540 A.2d 482 (Md. 1988) (Maryland court can enforce its judgment by issuing order requiring out-of-state corporation that is doing business in Maryland to garnish Texas employee’s wages only if corporation has sufficient minimum contacts with Maryland); Nagel v. Westen, 865 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) (court must have jurisdiction, meeting due process standards, over garnishee in order to issue garnishment order; allowing garnishment and application of Minnesota exemption law to annuity purchased in California from California subsidiary of Minnesota company by debtors who now reside in Texas; client agreement disclosing Minnesota address for financial services company’s headquarters, and including Minnesota choice-of-law provision, was sufficient to put purchasers on notice that they might be sued in Minnesota); Bianco v. Concepts “100,” Inc., 436 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981) (Pennsylvania court may issue garnishment against out-of-state insurance company only if company has sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to allow personal jurisdiction).

  • 134 Blach v. AFLAC, Inc., 2016 WL 676430 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 18, 2016); Huggins v. Deinhard, 654 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (Arizona court may enforce registered California judgment against debtor’s Arizona bank account without acquiring personal jurisdiction over debtor); Bank of Babylon v. Quirk, 472 A.2d 21 (Conn. 1984); UMS Partners, Ltd. v. Jackson, 1995 WL 413395 (Del. Super. Ct. June 15, 1995) (Pennsylvania judgment is enforceable against assets located in Delaware regardless of whether judgment debtor is subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware); Tabet v. Tabet, 644 So. 2d 557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); Williamson v. Williamson, 275 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. 1981) (personal jurisdiction over debtor unnecessary as long as debtor has property in the state that can be executed upon); Hexter v. Hexter, 386 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Nagel v. Westen, 865 N.W.2d 325, 340–341 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015) (court must have jurisdiction over garnishee but need not have jurisdiction over judgment debtor); Ruiz v. Lloses, 559 A.2d 866 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989); Lenchyshyn v. Pelko Elec., Inc., 723 N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001); Breezevale Ltd. v. Dickinson, 693 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999); Fine v. Spierer, 486 N.Y.S.2d 9 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985); Fraser v. Littlejohn, 386 S.E.2d 230, 233 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989); Berger v. Berger, 417 A.2d 921 (Vt. 1980); Koh v. Inno-Pacific Holdings, Ltd., 54 P.3d 1270, 1273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). See also Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 211 n.36, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977) (dictum) (“Once it has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant is a debtor of the plaintiff, there would seem to be no unfairness in allowing an action to realize on that debt in a State where the defendant has property, whether or not that State would have jurisdiction to determine the existence of the debt as an original matter”); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 60 (1971) (state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction to affect interests in a chattel in the state even if owner is not within court’s personal jurisdiction), 68 (state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction to apply to the satisfaction of a claim an obligation owed to the person against whom the claim is asserted if the obligor is subject to the judicial jurisdiction of the state, even though the state lacks jurisdiction over the person against whom the claim is asserted). Cf. Electrolines, Inc. v. Prudential Assurance Co., Ltd., 677 N.W.2d 874, 885 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (court cannot enforce foreign judgment unless it has jurisdiction over defendant or defendant’s property).

  • 135 According to the website of the Uniform Law Commission (formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or NCCUSL)—available at www.uniformlaws.org—all jurisdictions except California, Puerto Rico, and Vermont have adopted the uniform law. California’s statute is described in the comments as “based on” the uniform statute. It differs by having different procedures for different kinds of foreign judgments. See Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 1710.10–1712 (sister state judgments), 1713–1725 (foreign country judgments), 1730–1741 (tribal court judgments) (West).

  • 136 See, e.g., Patrick v. Hess, 212 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 2017) (registration of foreign judgment is an alternative to common law action on the judgment); Mori v. Mori, 931 P.2d 854 (Utah 1997) (judgment plaintiff may file an action on a foreign judgment; Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act does not apply to judgments from other countries that are not subject to Full Faith and Credit Clause).

  • 137 Unif. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) § 2.

  • 138 Id. § 3.

  • 139 Id. § 3(b).

  • 140 Id. § 3(b). Cf. Doyle v. Schultz, 97 F. Supp. 2d 763 (W.D. La. 2000) (judgment creditor and collection firm may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for invoking state procedures that allowed issuance of writ for constructive seizure of home without judicial approval or notice and opportunity for hearing based on out-of-state judgment that was not yet final).

  • 141 Unif. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) § 2. See, e.g., Fish v. Sone, Higgs & Drexler, P.C., 2017 WL 6757575 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 29, 2017) (Mississippi judgment creditor may garnish Mississippi consumer’s wages by domesticating judgment in Tennessee and serving office of debtor’s employer in Tennessee; due process issue does not arise because consumer had opportunity to defend in underlying debt collection action).

  • 142 Unif. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) § 3(c). Cf. Patrick v. Hess, 212 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 2017) (interpreting Florida’s non-uniform version of UEFJA; Florida’s twenty-year statute of limitations for enforcement of judgments, rather than Arizona’s five-year period, applies to Arizona judgment registered in Florida).

  • 143 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-604; N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5401 (McKinney).

  • 144 Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 865 A.2d 500 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005) (allowing use of UEFJA procedure; debtor filed an appearance but failed to appear for trial); Elie v. Levlex Enters., Ltd., 742 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (judgment—in which party, “although aware of the proceedings,” never entered an appearance—was obtained by “default in appearance” and could not be registered by UEFJA procedure). Cf. Williamson v. Vara, 1998 WL 855452 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 1998) (disallowing use of UEFJA procedure; where debtor filed only a special appearance in the foreign jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction, judgment entered there was a default judgment). But cf. Caruso, Burlington v. Perlow, 2006 WL 1075179 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 7, 2006) (Florida default judgments no longer fell within the exception; after defaults were entered, Florida court held a hearing, in which counsel participated, and denied motions to vacate judgments); Wilber Nat’l Bank v. F & A, Inc., 2002 WL 378070 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2001) (UEFJA procedure is available where debtor appeared through counsel in the foreign jurisdiction to contest the entry of judgment, even though the foreign judgment recited that it was entered by default, uniform act procedure).

  • 145 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-607; N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5406 (McKinney). See Tri-State Corp. v. Higganum Heating, Inc., 699 A.2d 201 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997) (uniform act does not bar common law action to enforce foreign default judgment).

  • 146 Unif. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) § 4.

  • 147 Unif. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) § 2.