Lanier v. Mcmath Constr., Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2013
• Docket Number: 1120413.
• Citation: 141 So.3d 974
• Parties: John Robert LANIER v. McMATH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

141 So.3d 974

John Robert LANIER

v.McMATH CONSTRUCTION, INC.

1120413.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 20, 2013.

Thomas B. Albritton of Albrittons, Clifton & Moody, P.C., Andalusia, for appellant.

Thomas P. Ollinger, Jr., Mobile, for appellee.

WISE, Justice.

One of the defendants below, John Robert Lanier, appeals from the denial of his motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., and for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60, Ala. R. Civ. P. Lanier's motion was filed after the plaintiff, McMath Construction, Inc., filed a “Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment” pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“the UEFJA”), § 6–9–230 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

McMath filed an action in the district court of the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana (“the Louisiana court”), against Lanier, Michael Veazey, and LT & C, Inc., a company in which Lanier was a part owner (“the Louisiana litigation”). Service of the Louisiana litigation was attempted by certified mail addressed to Lanier at “7801 Hwy. 59 South, Foley, AL 36535.” Lanier's mother, Sharon Lanier, signed the return receipt for the mail on March 21, 2007.

In their briefs to this Court, the parties state that, on September 5, 2007, the Louisiana court entered a preliminary default judgment in favor of McMath and against Lanier, Veazey, and LT & C (“the preliminary default judgment”). The record indicates that, on February 8, 2011, the Louisiana court entered an order in which it confirmed the preliminary default judgment (“the Louisiana judgment”). On October 4, 2011, McMath filed in the Mobile Circuit Court a “Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment” pursuant to the UEFJA, to which it attached a certified copy of the Louisiana judgment.

On November 28, 2011, Lanier and LT & C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the defendants”) filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate pursuant to Rule 59 and for relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60 (“motion for relief from judgment”), in which they alleged, among other things, that the Louisiana judgment was void. The defendants based their contention, in part, on their assertion that Lanier had not been properly served before the Louisiana court entered the preliminary default judgment. McMath filed an opposition to the defendants' motion for relief from judgment, and Lanier filed a reply to McMath's opposition. On November 26, 2012, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for relief from judgment. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

“The review applicable to a Rule 60(b)(4) motion is de novo. When the grant or denial of relief turns on the validity of the judgment, as under Rule 60(b)(4), discretion has no place. Satterfield v. Winston Indus., Inc., 553 So.2d 61, 64 (Ala.1989); Smith v. Clark, 468 So.2d 138, 141 (Ala.1985); Seventh Wonder v. Southbound Records, Inc., 364 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Ala.1978). The only question before us is whether the judgment is void. Satterfield, 553 So.2d at 64; Smith, 468 So.2d at 141; Seventh Wonder, 364 So.2d at 1174. A judgment is void only if the court rendering it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Satterfield, 553 So.2d at 64; Smith, 468 So.2d at 141; Seventh Wonder, 364 So.2d at 1174.

“The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 1, requires that ‘full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ A judgment, therefore, entered by the court of another state having jurisdiction over the subject matter and persons is entitled to full faith and credit in Alabama courts. Teng v. Diplomat National Bank, 431 So.2d 1202 (Ala.1983); Morse v. Morse, 394 So.2d 950 (Ala.1981).

“The validity and effect of a foreign judgment are determined by the law of the state in which it was rendered. Teng, 431 So.2d at 1203; Morse, 394 So.2d at 951; Forbes v. Davis, 187 Ala. 71, 65 So. 516 (1914). If a judgment of a sister state is properly authenticated and filed with the circuit court, [as provided for in the UEFJA, Ala.Code 1975,] §§ 6–9–232, 6–9–233, a presumption arises that the court rendering that judgment had jurisdiction to do so. See Teng, 431 So.2d at 1203. Therefore, the party challenging the judgment has the burden of asserting lack of jurisdiction and producing evidence to overcome the presumption. Id.”

Greene v. Connelly, 628 So.2d 346, 351 (Ala.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638 (Ala.2003).

“The nature of our review of the legal conclusions of a trial court is de novo. City of Russellville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Vernon, 842 So.2d 627 (Ala.2002). However, ... the scope of our review in this case is limited to examining whether the issue of personal jurisdiction was ‘fully and fairly litigated and finally decided’ in Virginia.”

Omega Leasing Corp. v. Movie Gallery, Inc., 859 So.2d 421, 422 (Ala.2003).

“ ‘Before enforcing a foreign judgment, Alabama courts may inquire into the jurisdiction of the foreign court. “The scope of the inquiry is limited to ‘(1) whether the issue of jurisdiction was fully and fairly litigated by the foreign court, and (2) whether the issue of jurisdiction was finally decided by the foreign court.’ ” '

“McGouryk [ v. McGouryk ], 672 So.2d [1300,] 1302 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1995) ] (quoting Feore v. Feore, 627 So.2d 411, 413 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), quoting in turn Alston Elec. Supply Co. v. Alabama Elec. Wholesalers, Inc., 586 So.2d 10, 11 (Ala.Civ.App.1991)). ‘The burden is on a party challenging the validity of the foreign judgment to assert and demonstrate the rendering court's lack of jurisdiction.’ Menendez [ v. COLSA, Inc.], 852 So.2d [768,] 771 [ (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ] (citing Greene v. Connelly, 628 So.2d 346, 351 (Ala.1993)).”

Bartlett v. Unistar Leasing, 931 So.2d 717, 720 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

“The special writing in Ex parte Lanier Worldwide, [ Inc.,922 So.2d 115 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) ], indicates that where, as here, res judicata principles do not bind an Alabama court to any particular conclusion regarding the existence of a foreign court's jurisdiction, ‘the courts of this state may and should inquire into the jurisdiction of a foreign court whose judgment is sought to be enforced in this state and that, in so doing, the courts of this state are to make their own determination on the merits as to whether that foreign judgment is void.’ 922 So.2d at 120–21. We are, however, bound by a duty to afford full faith and credit to judicial proceedings of our sister states, a duty that partakes of both constitutional and statutory dimensions. SeeU.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1738; see also [Package Express Center, Inc. v.] Maund, 957 So.2d [1137,] 1140 [ (Ala.Civ.App.2006) ]. We must, therefore, analyze the validity of the judgment that Lanier sought to register under the law of the state whose courts rendered it.... E.g., Morse v. Morse, 394 So.2d 950, 951 (Ala.1981).”Lanier Worldwide, Inc. v. Crum, 976 So.2d 451, 454 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).

Based on the record before this Court, it does not appear that the Louisiana court litigated the issue whether Lanier was properly served in the Louisiana case before entering the preliminary default judgment.¹ Thus, the doctrine of res judicata does not bind this Court to any particular conclusion regarding the existence of the jurisdiction of the Louisiana court. See Lanier Worldwide, supra. Therefore, this Court is to make its own determination on the merits as to whether the Louisiana judgment is void. Id. However, we must analyze the validity of the Louisiana judgment against Lanier under Louisiana law. See Greene, supra; Lanier Worldwide, supra.

Discussion

Lanier argues that the Louisiana judgment cannot be enforced against him in Alabama because, he says, that judgment is void. Specifically, he contends that the Louisiana judgment is void because, he says, he was not properly served pursuant to the Louisiana Long Arm Statute, § 13:3204, La.Rev.Stat. Ann.

Article 6, La.Code Civ. Proc. Ann., provides:

“A. Jurisdiction over the person is the legal power and authority of a court to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding. The exercise of this jurisdiction requires:

“(1) The service of process on the defendant, or on his agent for the service of process, or the express waiver of citation and service under Article 1201.

“(2) The service of process on the attorney at law appointed by the court to defend an action or proceeding brought against an absent or incompetent defendant who is domiciled in this state.

“(3) The submission of the party to the jurisdiction of the court by commencing an action or by the waiver of objection to jurisdiction by failure to timely file the declinatory exception.

“B. In addition to the provisions of Paragraph A, a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and with the Constitution of the United States.”

Article 1201, La.Code Civ. Proc. Ann., provides, in pertinent part:

“A. Citation and service thereof are essential in all civil actions except summaryand executory proceedings, divorce actions under Civil Code Article 102, and proceedings under the Children's Code. Without them all proceedings are absolutely null.”

Section 13:3204, La.Rev.Stat. Ann., provides, in pertinent part:

“A. In a suit under R.S. 13:3201,² a certified copy of the citation or the notice in a divorce under Civil Code Article 102 and of the petition or a certified copy of a contradictory motion, rule to show cause, or other pleading filed by the plaintiff in a summary proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure Article 2592 shall be sent by counsel for the plaintiff, or by the plaintiff if not represented by counsel, to the defendant by...