Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Cascade Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 18 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 98-1602.,98-1602. |
Citation | 621 N.W.2d 193 |
Parties | EDWARD ROSE BUILDING COMPANY, Appellee, v. CASCADE LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Dave Hughes, Cascade, and Roger J. Kurt, Dubuque, for appellant.
Chad C. Leitch and Davin C. Curtiss of O'Connor & Thomas, P.C., Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered en banc.
The issue in this case is whether an Illinois judgment may be enforced in Iowa under Iowa Code chapter 626A (1997) in the face of the judgment debtor's argument that the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction. We reject this argument and hold the district court properly enforced the Illinois judgment.
Cascade Lumber Company, an Iowa corporation, contracted with Edward Rose Building Company (Edward Rose), a Michigan corporation, to manufacture building trusses and deliver them to a building site in Illinois. A dispute arose, and on July 16, 1997, Cascade filed a declaratory judgment action in Dubuque County to determine the parties' rights and obligations. While that action was pending, Edward Rose sued Cascade on the contract in an Illinois court. Cascade was served notice of the Illinois suit but did not participate in it, and on October 22, 1997, the Illinois court entered a default order against Cascade. In December 1997 the Illinois court entered a judgment against Cascade for $59,778.
Edward Rose filed the Illinois judgment in the Iowa district court as provided in Iowa Code chapter 626A, our Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Cascade filed an objection to the filing of the judgment, contending the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction to enter it because the Iowa case, which had been filed first, preempted jurisdiction. The district court rejected Cascade's argument and ruled the Illinois judgment was enforceable in Iowa.
Iowa Code § 626A.2(1).
The purpose of statutes like chapter 626A is to give effect to a foreign judgment without the necessity of suing on the judgment in a second action, although the latter remedy was preserved in Iowa by the uniform act. See Iowa Code § 626A.6. The commissioners' note to the uniform act explains the rationale:
One of the things that contributes to calendar congestion is the Federal necessity of giving full faith and credit to the judgments of courts of other states. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. While there is no constitutional requirement that a debtor who has had a full due process trial in one state need be given a second full scale trial on the judgment in another state, this is the only course generally available to creditors. The usual practice requires that an action be commenced on the foreign judgment. The full procedural requirements apply to the second action.
Unif. Enforcement of Judgments Act (revised 1964), 13 U.L.A. 171 commissioners' prefatory note (1986).
Cascade contends the Illinois judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit because the Illinois court did not have jurisdiction to enter it. It does not contend, as the judgment debtor did in Eagle Leasing v. Amandus, 476 N.W.2d 35, 37 (Iowa 1991), that the foreign judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cascade instead makes a preemption argument—that once the Iowa action was commenced the Illinois court could not become involved. Cascade cites no cases on point but relies on language in an analogous case, Central National Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432, 459-60, 18 S.Ct. 403, 413, 42 L.Ed. 807, 817 (1898). The Court in that case said:
"It is a doctrine of law too long established to require a citation of authorities that, where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and, whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, till reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court; and that, where the jurisdiction of a court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court."
Id. (emphasis added) ). Central National must be distinguished. The above quote relied on by Cascade was dictum. The Court in that case actually held a judgment of the federal circuit court could not subsequently be ignored by a New York court. In the present case, there was no judgment in the Iowa court when the Illinois court entered its judgment.
A court may defer to the courts of another state where there is a pending proceeding involving the same subject matter and pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FIRST MIDWEST v. Corporate Fin. Associates
...if a case involving the same parties and subject matter is pending in the court of another state. Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Cascade Lumber Co., 621 N.W.2d 193, 195-96 (Iowa 2001). CFA concedes, as it must, that the decision to grant or deny a stay rests in the sound discretion of the trial c......
-
Summit Interests Inc. v. Mescher
...in which it was rendered, and this is true even if the judgment is obtained by default. Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Cascade Lumber Co., 621 N.W.2d 193, 194–95 (Iowa 2001). “Under the full faith and credit clause, the preclusive effect of a judgment must be determined by the law of the state in......
-
Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. Iowa Utilities Bd.
...outcome of the Nebraska litigation over the refund before exercising its jurisdiction. We disagree. Cf. Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Cascade Lumber Co., 621 N.W.2d 193, 195-96 (Iowa 2001) (describing general principles of comity between courts of different states). The refund order issued by th......
-
Kajal Properties, LLC v. Dakota Title & Escrow Co., No. 8-785/08-0299 (Iowa App. 1/22/2009)
...a judgment of another state the same preclusive effect as it has in the state in which it was rendered. Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Cascade Lumber Co., 621 N.W.2d 193, 194-95 (Iowa 2001). Accordingly, district court applied California law in determining the preclusive effect of the plaintiffs'......