Hansen v. Pingenot
| Decision Date | 07 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA0778,85CA0778 |
| Citation | 739 P.2d 911 |
| Parties | Gary G. HANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ron PINGENOT, d/b/a Tejon Gallery, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Keller, Dunievitz, Johnson & Wahlberg, Lionel Dunievitz, Denver, and Fordyce & Mayne, P.C., Stephen A. Thompson, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff-appellee.
Leo Gemma, Jr., Littleon, and David L. McCarl, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Ron Pingenot, d/b/a Tejon Gallery, appeals the trial court's order denying his motions to dismiss, set aside, or stay a default judgment which plaintiff, Gary G. Hansen, seeks to enforce under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (the Act). We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order dismissing the action.
On August 21, 1984, a default judgment was entered against Pingenot, a resident of Colorado, in favor of Hansen, a resident of Missouri, by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of $5,142, plus pre-judgment interest of $1,234.08, and Hansen's costs. On December 10, 1984, an authenticated copy of the judgment was filed in the Jefferson County District Court.
Thereafter, Pingenot filed motions to dismiss, set aside, or stay the execution of the default judgment, contending that the Missouri court lacked personal jurisdiction. Pingenot also filed a supporting affidavit in which he stated he had not transacted any business with Hansen in Missouri, either individually, or on behalf of Tejon Gallery, Ltd., a Colorado corporation. Pingenot further urged that the filing of the judgment in Colorado should be vacated because Hansen, a non-resident, had not filed a bond as security for costs pursuant to § 13-16-101, C.R.S.
By an order dated February 11, 1985, the trial court found that the record before it did not indicate whether the Missouri court had personal jurisdiction over Pingenot when the default judgment was entered. Therefore, the court directed that a hearing be held on the issue of jurisdiction. Prior to the hearing, Hansen filed a brief in support of his position, and evidently attached an exemplified copy of the return of service. The return of service is not part of the record before this court.
A hearing was held on April 10, 1985, before a different judge. Counsel argued the issue of personal jurisdiction, but no evidence was adduced. The court found, after considering the Missouri judgment and the return of service, that Pingenot had received actual notice. Thus, the court reasoned, Pingenot's challenge to the Missouri court's jurisdiction should have been raised in Missouri. The court held that the Missouri judgment should be accorded full faith and credit, and denied Pingenot's motions. In its findings and order enforcing the Missouri judgment nunc pro tunc, it ruled that Pingenot had failed to show, "by any type of evidence required by law," that the Missouri court did not have jurisdiction over his person.
Pingenot first contends that the trial court erred in finding that the Missouri court had acquired personal jurisdiction over him. We agree.
Under U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, full faith and credit must give to the public acts and judgments of a sister state. Tucker v. Vista Financial Corp., 192 Colo. 440, 560 P.2d 453 (1977). Section 13-53-103, C.R.S., establishes the procedure whereby a nonresident may file a foreign judgment in any Colorado court which would have had jurisdiction over the original action if it had been commenced in this state. Once filed in accordance with the Act, the foreign judgment is enforced in the same manner as all other judgments of this state.
However, if the foreign judgment was rendered without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the judgment is void and will not be enforced. Tucker v. Vista Financial Corp., supra. See also O'Brien v. Eubanks, 701 P.2d 614 (Colo.App.1985). While the court asked to enforce the judgment cannot redetermine the merits of the case or the wisdom of the judgment, it always has the power to inquire into the jurisdiction of the foreign court to issue the judgment. Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 81 (1982).
Personal jurisdiction does not depend upon service alone. See Superior Distributing Corp. v. White, 146 Colo. 595, 362 P.2d 196 (1961). Due process requires that the defendant also have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to make it reasonable to require him to litigate in that state, and to demonstrate that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). See World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
Hansen argues that the Missouri court acquired jurisdiction over Pingenot by virtue of Missouri's long arm statute. That statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Legum v. Brown, 13, Sept. Term, 2006.
...of the foreign judgment to prove lack of jurisdiction apply even when the foreign judgment was entered by default. See Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911 (Colo.App.1987); L & L Wholesale, Inc. v. Gibbens, 108 S.W.3d 74 (Mo.App. 2003); Gletzer v. Harris, 159 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App.2005); Will of K......
-
Lohman v. Lohman
...of the judgment are not open to collateral attack in the enforcement court. Milliken,311 U.S. at 462, 61 S.Ct. 339; Hansen v. Pingenot,739 P.2d 911, 913 (Colo.App.1987).¶ 26 When the foreign judgment is challenged in the enforcement court, that court must determine both whether the forum co......
-
Marworth, Inc. v. McGuire, 90SC80
...full faith and credit in every other state. Tucker v. Vista Fin. Corp., 192 Colo. 440, 442, 560 P.2d 453, 455 (1977); Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911, 912 (Colo.App.1987); see also Underwriter's Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 6......
-
Caldwell v. Barnes, 13-93-699-CV
...attacked it in Colorado if it was in fact a "void" judgment, or was based upon fraud. Id. at 656-57; see also Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911 (Colo.App.1987) (permitting Colorado court to inquire into whether Missouri court had jurisdiction to issue a judgment). Colorado Rules of Civil Pro......
-
ARTICLE 52
...of case or wisdom of judgment, it always has power to inquire into jurisdiction of foreign court to issue judgment. Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911 (Colo. App. 1987). "Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act" does not create defenses to foreign judgments which violate the full faith a......
-
ARTICLE 53 UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
...of case or wisdom of judgment, it always has power to inquire into jurisdiction of foreign court to issue judgment. Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911 (Colo. App. 1987). "Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act" does not create defenses to foreign judgments which violate the full faith a......
-
Bonds in Colorado Courts: a Primer for Practitioners
...exception: the Cost Bond Statute, supra, note 2, does not apply to non-residents registering foreign judgments. See Hansen v. Pingenot, 739 P.2d 911, 913 (Colo.App. 1987) (rejecting argument that enforcement of foreign judgment proceeding must be dismissed for non-resident judgment creditor......