Electro-Measure, Inc. v. Ewald Enterprises, Inc., ELECTRO-MEASUR
| Decision Date | 30 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. C3-86-1138,ELECTRO-MEASUR,C3-86-1138 |
| Parties | , Appellant, v. EWALD ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A foreign court's judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is not entitled to full faith and credit in Minnesota. The due process clause of the United States Constitution and the law of the foreign state as construed by the courts of that state are applied to determine whether the foreign court obtained personal jurisdiction.
2. According to constitutional law and a Wisconsin statute, when service of summons by publication is authorized, the publication must be reasonably calculated to reach the interested party.
3. Under Wisconsin law, service of the summons by publication must be accompanied by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint if the address of the defendant is known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
William P. Studer, David G. Seykora, St. Paul, for appellant.
Douglas E. Schmidt, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by CRIPPEN, P.J., and LANSING, and LESLIE, JJ.
This appeal questions whether the trial court erred in vacating a Wisconsin judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We affirm.
In August 1979, respondent Ewald Enterprises, Inc. shipped materials for assembly to appellant Electro-Measure, Inc. (EMI) at EMI's facility in Menasha, Wisconsin. Ewald Enterprises ceased communication with EMI sometime in late 1979 or early 1980. Appellant attempted to contact Ewald Enterprises in 1981 and 1982, both by telephone and mail at the two business addresses known to EMI. One of the addresses was the address for service of process listed in Ewald Enterprises' Minnesota articles of incorporation. These attempts to locate John Ewald or Ewald Enterprises was unsuccessful.
In February 1982, EMI mailed a certified letter to Ewald Enterprises at one of the known addresses. The post office was not able to deliver the letter to the prior business address. The post office located a forwarding address for Ewald Enterprises in Litchfield and placed a label on the letter with this address. The certified letter was not claimed when delivered to the Litchfield post office, and was returned to EMI.
On August 10, 1982, EMI filed a summons and complaint against Ewald Enterprises with the circuit court in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. EMI sought to recover the costs of assembly and storage on the materials sent by Ewald Enterprises to EMI, and requested the court to authorize EMI to dispose of the inventory. EMI delivered copies of the summons and complaint to the Hennepin County sheriff. The Hennepin County sheriff was unable to locate Ewald Enterprises. The Hennepin County sheriff returned a certificate of attempted service and indicated that Ewald Enterprises may have moved to Meeker County.
EMI then delivered copies of the summons and complaint to the sheriff of Meeker County. The sheriff attempted personal service at the Litchfield address noted by postal authorities on the February 1982 letter. In a letter dated September 22, 1982, the Meeker County sheriff indicated he had been trying to locate John Ewald in regard to this and other matters for the past two and one-half months but had no success. On one occasion the sheriff found a vehicle at Ewald's house, but was not able to get a response at the door. The sheriff stated, "I believe I heard a noise inside the house when I rang the doorbell but I can't be positive enough to say that someone was evading service." Neighbors in the area told the sheriff they saw Ewald on occasion.
Evidence introduced at trial established that during 1982 John Ewald was the sole officer and shareholder of Ewald Enterprises and conducted the affairs of the corporation from his Litchfield, Minnesota residence. The residence had a telephone and John Ewald received his mail there on a daily basis.
In October 1982, appellant published the summons in the Post-Crescent, a newspaper in general circulation in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. The notice was published for three consecutive weeks. This was the only publication of notice. EMI did not mail a copy of the summons and complaint to Ewald Enterprises at the time notice was published, even though the Meeker County sheriff confirmed respondent's Litchfield address.
On November 24, 1982, a hearing was held before the Outagamie County circuit court and judgment was entered on the same day. Respondent Ewald Enterprises did not appear at the hearing. The trial court's findings state that "[respondent] is a Minnesota corporation and its principal offices are unknown." The court's findings and judgment recognize appellant was unable to personally serve respondent and the summons was published in the Post-Crescent newspaper. Apparently the court believed this method of service was sufficient to provide the court with personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that EMI was entitled to judgment against respondent in the amount of $3160 for labor, material furnished, and storage costs through November 1982. The court granted EMI the authority to sell the property after giving respondent at least 10 days notice.
Ewald Enterprises resumed contact with EMI in January 1985. On November 1, 1985, Ewald Enterprises filed a motion in the Hennepin County district court to vacate the Wisconsin judgment. The court granted the motion and vacated the Wisconsin judgment, concluding that the Outagamie County court did not have personal jurisdiction to enter judgment against Ewald Enterprises. As a result, the Minnesota court was without power to accord the foreign judgment full faith and credit.
EMI appeals the decision of the Hennepin County district court vacating the Wisconsin judgment.
1. Did appellant meet the constitutional and statutory requirement that notice be published in a newspaper reasonably calculated to give notice to respondent?
2. Did appellant meet the statutory requirement that notice by publication must be accompanied by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint if the defendant's address is known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence?
A foreign court's judgment rendered in the absence of proper personal jurisdiction is not entitled to full faith and credit in Minnesota. David M. Rice, Inc. v. Intrex, Inc., 257 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Minn.1977). The foreign court must comply with its own state legislation enacted to provide the court with jurisdiction and with the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Id. In determining whether the foreign court obtained personal jurisdiction, Minnesota courts apply the law of the foreign state as construed by the courts of that state. Id. at 373.
1. The trial court vacated the Wisconsin judgment on the grounds that appellant failed to publish notice in a newspaper "reasonably calculated to give notice." The court relied on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) and Wisconsin Statutes Secs. 801.11 and 985.02. We agree with this conclusion. A court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a party through service of summons by publication if, after due diligence, the party's whereabouts cannot be ascertained. See Mullane, 339 U.S. at 317, 70 S.Ct. at 658-659. However the publication must be "reasonably calculated" to reach the interested party.
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
This mandate is embodied in the Wisconsin statute governing service by publication. When service by publication is authorized by Wis.Stat. Sec. 801.11(1)(c) or Sec. 801.11(5)(b), "notice shall be published in a newspaper likely to give notice in the area or to the person affected." Wis.Stat.Ann. Sec. 985.02(1) (West 1985).
The Minnesota court was correct in deciding that publication of the summons and complaint in Wisconsin was not reasonably calculated to give notice to respondent. EMI knew of only one officer of respondent corpo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1997 -NMCA- 16, Thoma v. Thoma
...jurisdiction over Husband, a New Mexico resident. Oklahoma law would apply for this determination. See Electro-Measure, Inc. v. Ewald Enters., Inc., 398 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), review denied (Mar. 13, 1987); China Express, Inc. v. Volpi & Son Mach. Corp., 126 A.D.2d 239, 513 N.Y.S......
-
Otremba v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 13-871 (JRT/HB)
...§ 331A.03, see Furlow v. HSBC Bank USA, at 4, a few cases have provided some guidance. For example, inElectro-Measure, Inc. v. Ewald Enterprises, Inc., 398 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted a very similar Wisconsin statute governing publication for ......
-
Burns v. Ungerman, No. A04-290 (MN 3/1/2005), A04-290.
...West Side Pawn, 587 N.W.2d 521, 522 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1999); see also Electro-Measure, Inc. v. Ewald Enters., Inc., 398 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing de novo whether service by publication provided adequate notice),review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, "[......
-
Griffis v. Luban
...full faith and credit to a foreign court's judgment if that court lacks proper personal jurisdiction. Electro-Measure, Inc. v. Ewald Enters., Inc., 398 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn.App.1986), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1987). To acquire personal jurisdiction, the foreign court must comply with it......