Jay Group v. Bootery of Haywood Mall

• Citation: 515 S.E.2d 542,335 S.C. 114
• Decision Date: 15 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 2959.,2959.
• Parties: The JAY GROUP, LTD., Respondent, v. The BOOTERY OF HAYWOOD MALL, INC., d/b/a George's Bootery, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

335 S.C. 114

515 S.E.2d 542

The JAY GROUP, LTD., Respondent, v. The BOOTERY OF HAYWOOD MALL, INC., d/b/a George's Bootery, Appellant.

No. 2959.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted January 12, 1999.

Decided March 15, 1999.

William H. Thomas, III, of Greenville, for appellant.

Leo A. Dryer, Jr., of Columbia, for respondent.

HUFF, Judge:

The Bootery of Haywood Mall, Inc. (Haywood Bootery) appeals from the trial judge's order according full faith and credit to a North Carolina default judgment in favor of the Jay Group, Ltd. We reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Jay Group is a shoe wholesaler in North Carolina. The Haywood Bootery is one of several separate South Carolina corporate entities doing business as George's Bootery. Each of the entities, including Haywood Bootery, operates its own retail shoe store.

The Jay Group filed an action in North Carolina for an account debt against several of the entities, including the Haywood Bootery. Supporting its claim of both personal jurisdiction over and debt of the defendants, the Jay Group submitted statements and invoices to the North Carolina court. The North Carolina court entered a default judgment in favor of the Jay Group against the defendants for the sum certain of $4,740.19, plus interest and costs.

The Jay Group then sought to domesticate the North Carolina judgment in Greenville County, South Carolina, against the Haywood Bootery. The Haywood Bootery challenged the judgment as rendered without personal jurisdiction and moved the court to set it aside. After a hearing, the trial court denied Haywood Bootery's motion and ruled that the North Carolina judgment was valid and enforceable. The Haywood Bootery filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court summarily denied. This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The Haywood Bootery essentially complains that the North Carolina judgment against it is not entitled to full faith and credit because the court rendered it without personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We agree.

The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act permits a judgment debtor to "file a motion for relief from, or notice of defense to, [a] foreign judgment on the grounds that the foreign judgment has been appealed from, that enforcement has been stayed by the court which rendered it, or on any other ground for which relief from a judgment of this State is allowed." S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(A) (Supp. 1998). Lack of personal jurisdiction is one such ground upon which a judgment debtor may file a motion for relief from a foreign judgment. PYA/Monarch, Inc. v. Sowell's Meats & Servs., Inc., 327 S.C. 469, 473, 486 S.E.2d 766, 768 (CtApp. 1997). Upon a hearing, "[t]he judgment creditor has the burden of proving that the foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit." S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(B) (Supp.1998). The law against which a foreign judgment is evaluated for validity and effect is the law of the state rendering that judgment. PYA/Monarch, 327 S.C. at 473, 486 S.E.2d at 768. Thus, we must determine whether North Carolina properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Haywood Bootery pursuant to North Carolina law.

North Carolina follows a two-step analysis in determining whether its courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. First, it must be determined whether the North Carolina long-arm statute supports the court's authority over the defendant. Second, it must be determined whether the exercise of jurisdiction violates due process. Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Industries Corp., 318 N.C. 361, 364, 348 S.E.2d 782, 785 (1986). North Carolina's long-arm statute states in relevant part:

A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served in an action pursuant to Rule 4(j), Rule 4(j1), or Rule 4(j3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure under any of the following circumstances:

...

(5) Local Services, Goods or Contracts.—In any action which:

...

d. Relates to goods, documents of title, or other things of value shipped from this State by the plaintiff to the defendant on his order or direction;

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4(5)(d) (1997).

...