Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Partee
| Decision Date | 01 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 18599-CA,18599-CA |
| Citation | 505 So.2d 919 |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Woodrow PARTEE, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Weiner, Weiss, Madison & Howell by Mark Tatum, Shreveport, for intervenor/appellant Dixie Truck, Inc.
Patricia N. Miramon, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.
Blanchard, Walker, O'Quinn & Roberts by John T. Cox, Jr., Shreveport, for plaintiff/appellee.
Before JASPER E. JONES, NORRIS and LINDSAY, JJ.
On March 7, 1986, Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) filed an "original petition with prayer for sequestration" against Woodrow Partee, a resident of Ohio, seeking payment of a debt due and recognition of FMCC's chattel mortgage. In response, the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office seized a large (18 wheeled) truck belonging to Woodrow Partee. On April 3, 1986, a petition for intervention was filed by Dixie Trucks, Inc (Dixie). Dixie claimed a security interest in the truck by way of a mechanic's lien. On April 9, a judgment was rendered in favor of FMCC, subject to resolution of the petition of intervention. On April 23, FMCC filed a rule to show cause to determine the ranking of the conflicting privileges. A judgment was signed on June 17, 1986, which gave FMCC priority over Dixie. The truck was later sold at a sheriff's sale and the proceeds were dispersed in accordance with the judgment. The proceeds of the sale were insufficient to fully satisfy the judgment of FMCC. Therefore, Dixie received no funds from the sale. Prior to the sale, Dixie devolutively appealed. Dixie contends that the trial court erred in finding that FMCC's privilege on the seized truck was superior to its privilege. We do not address this issue, finding we lack jurisdiction.
Woodrow Partee, an Ohio resident, purchased a 1978 Ford CLT 9000 Truck from Tri-State Ford Truck Sales, Inc. in Ohio on January 20, 1984. The contract created a security interest in the vehicle in favor of FMCC. The following month, Partee entered into a substitution agreement (chattel mortgage) with FMCC whereby a different truck was substituted for the truck Partee had first purchased. The substituted vehicle, a 1979 Ford CLT 9000 with vehicle identification number X989VEG9898, is the same vehicle currently at issue in this suit.
Partee subsequently leased the 1979 Ford CTL 9000 truck to Eddie J. Payne. Payne took the truck to Texas where he re-registered the truck, obtained Texas license plates and began using it to haul freight for Mustang Transportation, Inc., a Texas corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
On October 18, 1985, Payne was driving the truck through Shreveport, Louisiana, when the vehicle became disabled. Payne called Dixie Trucks, Inc. and Don Hale, service manager, went to inspect the truck. It was determined that the truck would have to be towed to Dixie's shop and completely overhauled. The truck had run out of oil and the bearings had locked up. Thus, very extensive damage was done to the engine. After receiving an estimate of the cost of repair, Payne gave permission for Dixie to proceed with the repairs. In January of 1986, after Dixie had ceased working on the vehicle because Payne had failed to make a deposit on the cost of the repairs, Dixie received calls from FMCC concerning the truck and its location. FMCC had learned from Partee that the truck was in Louisiana and that the truck required such extensive repairs that it was no longer economically practical for Partee to continue making payments on the truck.
Both Dixie and FMCC filed separate suits for the amounts due. Writs of sequestration were issued and the truck was seized. In order to expedite resolution of the legal issues presented, Dixie intervened in FMCC's suit against Partee. Dixie and FMCC subsequently agreed that a quick resolution of the ranking question was in the best interest of both parties. Prior to the trial of the ranking rule, a hearing was held in Dixie's suit against Partee on the question of jurisdiction over Partee. The court ruled that while it did have in rem jurisdiction over Partee's vehicle, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Partee.
The trial court determined at the trial of the rule that FMCC's privilege was superior to Dixie's. Dixie filed a devolutive appeal, apparently not wanting to spend additional funds on a bond to support a suspensive appeal. The previously seized truck was sold at a sheriff's sale and the proceeds from that sale were disbursed in accordance with the trial court judgment.
IN REM JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction in this case was established at the trial court level when the truck owned by Woodrow Partee, an Ohio resident, was seized by the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office pursuant to a writ of sequestration. No attempt was made to establish personal jurisdiction over Woodrow Partee. The only type of jurisdiction ever obtained in this case is in rem. LSA-C.C. Arts. 8 and 9.
Founded on physical power, the in rem jurisdiction of a state court is limited by the extent of its power and by the coordinate authority of sister states. The basis of the jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 246, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1236, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1283. FMCC contends that this court no longer has jurisdiction because the truck which was formerly seized has been sold and is no longer "within the grasp" of this court. Dixie answers this contention by relying on the theory of continuing jurisdiction; i.e., once jurisdiction is obtained, it continues until a final resolution of the issues occurs.
Continuing jurisdiction is based upon the concept that once the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of a court to decide a certain matter, that jurisdiction continues until a final resolution of the matter. Where jurisdiction over the person or the res has once attached, it is not defeated by removal of the person or the res beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Lukianoff v. Lukianoff, 166 La. 219, 116 So. 890 (1928); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 184 La. 689, 167 So. 191 (1936); Wilmot v. Wilmot, 223 La. 221, 65 So.2d 321 (1953); DeFatta v. DeFatta, 352 So.2d 287 (La.App. 2d Cir.1977); Parrish v. Parrish, 448 So.2d 804 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984).
However, the above reference to the removal of the res beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the pronouncements concerning continuing jurisdiction set forth in the above cited cases are not applicable to the facts of this case. Each of the cited cases deals with a question of status (divorce, separation, child custody, etc.). It is probable that the reference to jurisdiction of the res in the cited cases stems from the fact that "... sometimes proceedings affecting a status or relation, for instance a marital status, are referred to as proceedings quasi in rem." 20 Am Jur 2d, § 120.
In Lukianoff v. Lukianoff, supra, the court cited United States v. Dawson, 56 U.S. 467, 15 Howard 467, 14 L.Ed. 775 (1853) as authority for the general rule that where jurisdiction of the res has once attached it is not defeated by removal of the res beyond the jurisdiction of the court. However, Dawson does not adequately support the general rule asserted in Lukianoff. The issue presented in Dawson was whether a criminal defendant should be tried in the eastern or western federal district court for the State of Arkansas when the defendant was indicted while there was only a single federal district court for the entire state of Arkansas. Hence, Dawson is not applicable to the question presented here.
The cases cited by Dixie do not support the theory of continuing jurisdiction where jurisdiction is founded upon the seizure of property and that property is released before a final judgment is obtained. Therefore, we must analyze the structure of in rem jurisdiction to see if in rem jurisdiction has elements that would support its continuation even after the thing seized has been released.
The establishment of in rem jurisdiction was discussed in Cooper v. Reynolds Lessee, 77 U.S. 308, 10 Wall 308, 19 L.Ed. 931 (1870). The United States Supreme Court stated that jurisdiction over the res is obtained by a seizure under process of the court. It later stated that the jurisdiction of the court depended upon the seizure of the property, the one essential requisite to jurisdiction. Without this, the court can proceed no further. Likewise, see Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. 331, 11 Wall 331, 20 L.Ed. 161 (1871).
The case of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 5 Otto 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878) arose from the following set of facts. In 1866 Mitchell obtained judgment in Oregon against Neff for a debt which was owed. Neff was not a resident of Oregon but did own land in that state. However, the land was not attached or in any way brought under the jurisdiction of the court. Pennoyer later obtained the land, which Neff claimed to still own, under a sheriff's deed passed upon a judicial sale of the property pursuant to Mitchell's judgment. The United States Supreme Court ruled that an action brought against a non-resident is effectual only where property of the nonresident located in the state is brought under the control of the court and subjected to its disposition, or where the judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or effecting some interest therein. Thus, the judgment rendered by the state court against Neff was without validity and did not authorize sale of the property in controversy. Pennoyer points out that one of the essentials of jurisdiction in rem is that the thing shall be actually or constructively within the reach of the court. United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480, 55 S.Ct. 813, 79 L.Ed. 1559 (1935); Hanson v. Denckla, supra.
All previous decisions on in rem jurisdiction were modified by Shaffer v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Partee
...Court had only quasi in rem jurisdiction by virtue of the seizure of the truck and because the truck was sold, jurisdiction was lost, 505 So.2d 919. Dixie's petition for rehearing was denied and Dixie applied for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court. On July 1, 1987, that court granted writ......
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Partee