Flangas v. Perfekt Mktg., LLC

• Decision Date: 14 April 2022
• Docket Number: 81385
• Parties: Leonidas P. FLANGAS, an individual, Appellant, v. PERFEKT MARKETING, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

507 P.3d 574

Leonidas P. FLANGAS, an individual, Appellant,

v.PERFEKT MARKETING, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Respondent.

No. 81385

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED APRIL 14, 2022

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg and Robert L. Eisenberg, Reno; Christophers on Law Offices and Ian Christopherson, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

The Law Office of Vernon Nelson and Vernon A. Nelson, Jr., Las Vegas, for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.¹

OPINION

By the Court, CADISH, J.:

Respondent judgment creditor domesticated a foreign judgment in Nevada within the rendering state's statute of limitations but did not perfect service of the domestication notice on appellant judgment debtor until after the rendering state's limitations period for judgment enforcement passed. The district court denied appellant's motion to set aside the judgment, determining that respondent timely domesticated the judgment in Nevada and that respondent's accomplishment of actual service of the domestication notice on a later date did not affect the judgment's enforceability. Appellant now argues that the judgment is invalid and unenforceable because respondent did not renew it in the rendering state before it served appellant with notice of the domestication, thereby allowing the judgment to expire in the meantime. Appellant also argues that enforcement of a foreign judgment under such circumstances violates a judgment debtor's due-process rights.

We conclude that under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which Nevada has adopted, a foreign judgment is enforceable in Nevada if the judgment creditor domesticates that judgment according to the provisions of the Act within the rendering state's limitations period, and additionally, complies with the statutory notice provisions of the Act, which the district court correctly determined that appellant did here. We further conclude that enforcement of the foreign judgment does not violate due process because respondent served the domestication notice by certified mail, as required by statute, and this type of service is reasonably calculated to reach interested parties in this context. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent Perfekt Marketing, LLC, obtained a judgment, entered on May 5, 2014, against appellant Leonidas Flangas in Arizona. On February 5, 2019, Perfekt Marketing domesticated the judgment by tiling a certified copy of the foreign judgment and an affidavit of the foreign judgment's validity and enforceability, along with the names and last known addresses of the judgment debtor and creditor, respectively, in a Nevada district court. On February 6, 2019, Perfekt Marketing sent a notice of the filed application and affidavit by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Flangas's last-known address, as well as to the address of Flangas's attorney in Arizona. Additionally, Perfekt Marketing filed an affidavit of service with the Nevada district court to verify the date of service of the notice of the application and affidavit.

Perfekt Marketing never received confirmation by way of the return receipt that Flangas received the mailed notice. Thereafter, it attempted personal service of the notice on Flangas at the same, last-known personal address on four subsequent occasions. Perfekt Marketing accomplished personal service on Flangas on June 6, 2019, this time at the address of Flangas's law firm, approximately 120 days after the domestication notice was first mailed to Flangas and his Arizona attorney.

Thereafter, Flangas sought relief from the foreign judgment under NRCP 60(b). He argued that the Arizona judgment had expired, and thus, was void, because Perfekt Marketing failed to renew the judgment under Arizona law before it perfected personal service of the domestication notice on Flangas. Flangas also contended that the judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit because the delay in service of the domestication violated statutory-notice and due-process guarantees. Perfekt Marketing opposed and argued that the registration of a foreign judgment in Nevada domesticates the judgment in Nevada and triggers the six-year statute of limitations in Nevada for judgment enforcement. It contended that it properly domesticated the Arizona judgment, regardless of the timing of personal service, because it filed the judgment in Nevada before its expiration under the Arizona statute of limitations. The district court ultimately denied Flangas's NRCP 60(b) motion, concluding "that the filing date of the application of foreign judgment [was] the effective date of the" judgment in Nevada and "that there [was] no requirement that the notice of foreign judgment be served upon [the] judgment debtor." Flangas now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Enforceability of a foreign judgment is not defeated if a judgment creditor domesticates the judgment before its expiration in the rendering state, notwithstanding that the judgment debtor receives notice of the filing after its purported expiration in the rendering state

Flangas argues that the date on which a judgment creditor provides actual notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor serves as the operative date to determine whether a foreign judgment is valid and enforceable in a Nevada court. He asserts that the Arizona judgment had expired by the time Perfekt Marketing provided Flangas with actual notice of the domestication because the notice was not accomplished until after the Arizona statute of limitations for judgment enforcement had expired, and Perfekt Marketing failed to renew the judgment in Arizona before that expiration date. Further, he contends that Nevada courts cannot enforce an expired judgment, as it is no longer valid. We disagree.

Nevada's "enforcement measures" apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments. See Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 235, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) ("Enforcement measures... remain subject to the evenhanded control of forum law."). Nevada has adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) to govern the procedures to domesticate and enforce a foreign judgment in Nevada. See NRS 17.330 -.400. A foreign judgment is "any judgment of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit." NRS 17.340. The UEFJA mandates enforcement of "any foreign judgment" by providing that "[a]n exemplified copy of any foreign judgment may be filed with the clerk of any district court of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the district court of this state ." NRS 17.350 (emphasis added). We have explained that this language means that the act of domesticating a "foreign judgment in a Nevada district court" creates "a new action for the purposes of the statute of limitations." Trubenbach v. Amstadter, 109 Nev. 297, 301, 849 P.2d 288, 290 (1993). The foreign judgment, in effect, becomes a Nevada judgment subject to Nevada's enforcement rules. See id. ; see also NRS 17.350 ("A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying as a judgment of a district court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner." (emphasis added)). Thus, contrary to Flangas's argument, the date a foreign judgment is filed in Nevada, as opposed to the date actual notice of the filing is accomplished, provides the relevant date to determine a foreign judgment's enforceability and validity. Trubenbach , 109 Nev. at 299-300, 849 P.2d at 289. Accordingly, we focus on whether the Arizona judgment was enforceable and entitled to full faith and credit at the time Perfekt Marketing filed a copy of the foreign judgment in Nevada district court.

Here, the parties do not dispute that the foreign judgment remained enforceable under Arizona law when Perfekt Marketing domesticated the judgment in Nevada before its expiration under the Arizona statute of limitations. See generally Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1551(A) (2013) (providing that a judgment is enforceable "at any time within five years"). Because the date of filing is operative in determining enforceability, and because Perfekt Marketing registered the judgment in Nevada within Arizona's limitations period, the Arizona judgment never expired. Thus, the district court properly determined that renewal was not required to enforce the judgment. See Tandy Comput. Leasing v. Terina's Pizza, Inc., 105 Nev. 841, 844, 784 P.2d 7, 8 (1989) (reviewing a decision on a motion to set aside a foreign judgment for an abuse of discretion); Skender v. Brunsonbuilt Constr. & Dev. Co., 122 Nev. 1430, 1435, 148 P.3d 710, 714 (2006) (observing that the district court abuses its discretion when it makes an "arbitrary or capricious" decision or "exceeds the bounds of law or reason" (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 120, 17 P.3d 998, 1000 (2001) )).

Moreover, the six-year statute of limitations that governs the judgment's enforcement in Nevada began to accrue on February 5, 2019, when Perfekt Marketing filed the application, copy, and affidavit of the foreign judgment. See Trubenbach, 109 Nev. at 301, 849 P.2d at 290 (explaining that domestication of a foreign judgment according to the UEFJA's requirements triggers the six-year statute of limitations that governs judgment enforcement in Nevada); see also NRS 11.190(1)(a) (permitting a judgment creditor to enforce any "judgment or decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States" for six years). Regardless of whether actual notice was even required, Flangas received actual notice of the judgment before its expiration under the Nevada statute of limitations. Thus, we turn to the remaining issue of whether the Arizona judgment was entitled to full faith and credit when Perfekt Marketing filed the judgment in Nevada.

The...