Hammette v. Eickemeyer

• Decision Date: 06 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. A91A1888,A91A1888
• Citation: Hammette v. Eickemeyer, 416 S.E.2d 824, 203 Ga.App. 243 (Ga. App. 1992)
• Parties: HAMMETTE et al. v. EICKEMEYER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 824

416 S.E.2d 824

203 Ga.App. 243

HAMMETTE et al. v. EICKEMEYER.

No. A91A1888.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 6, 1992.

Garrett, McManus & Grubb, John G. Grubb, Jr., Decatur, for appellants.

Palmer, Howard & Clark, J. Larry Palmer, Christopher C. Howard, Jr., Austell, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

Appellee filed an Arizona judgment that he had obtained against appellant Hammette with a Georgia court pursuant to OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq., the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law. Pursuant to the statute, the Georgia court notified appellants of the filing, and appellants filed a response requesting that enforcement of the foreign judgment be stayed due to the lack of jurisdiction over appellants by the Arizona court. In their response, appellants also asserted a counterclaim against appellee. Appellee failed to appear at the calendar call, and the trial court issued an order granting default judgment and awarding damages to appellants on the counterclaim. Appellee then filed a motion to set aside the trial court order on the counterclaim, arguing that the trial court did not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction over appellee or the counterclaim pursuant to OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq. The trial court granted appellee's motion to set aside the judgment on the counterclaim but temporarily stayed enforcement of the Arizona judgment.

Appellants then moved to set aside and permanently stay enforcement of the Arizona judgment, and the trial court set aside the Georgia judgment that resulted from the filed foreign judgment after the court determined that the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over appellants. Appellee did not appeal the order setting aside the filed Arizona judgment; however appellants appeal from the order of the trial court granting appellee's motion to set aside the judgment on the counterclaim.

This case presents the issue of whether a counterclaim can be asserted in a proceeding instituted under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, a question of first impression in this state. The trial court found that OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq. is a special statutory proceeding for filing a foreign judgment and does not provide for the filing of counterclaims by the judgment debtor; that the Court did not have any jurisdiction to enter any judgment against the appellee as to appellants' counterclaim; that the only question which may be litigated pursuant to OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq. is whether the enforcement of the foreign judgment should be stayed in Georgia; and that the filing of the foreign judgment by the judgment creditor submits the appellee to the jurisdiction of this Court only to the extent necessary for a determination of whether the foreign judgment's enforcement should be stayed in Georgia. The reasoning of the trial court finds support in both the statutory scheme and in decisions of other jurisdictions. The Uniform...