Marina Associates v. Barton, 1-88-2802

• Decision Date: 16 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 1-88-2802,1-88-2802
• Citation: Marina Associates v. Barton, 563 N.E.2d 1110, 206 Ill.App.3d 122, 151 Ill.Dec. 4 (Ill. App. 1990)
• Parties: , 151 Ill.Dec. 4 MARINA ASSOCIATES, a general partnership d/b/a Harrah's Marina Hotel Casino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sydwin N. BARTON, an individual, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1110

563 N.E.2d 1110

206 Ill.App.3d 122, 151 Ill.Dec. 4

MARINA ASSOCIATES, a general partnership d/b/a Harrah's Marina Hotel Casino, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Sydwin N. BARTON, an individual, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-88-2802.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

Nov. 16, 1990.

Charles N. Brusso & Associates, Chicago (Timothy J. O'Donovan, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Gordon & Gordon, Ltd., Chicago (Robert E. Gordon, Lawrence G. Gordon, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Presiding Justice COCCIA^*delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Marina Associates, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing its petition for the registration of a foreign judgment in Illinois.For the following reasons we reverse and remand.

Marina Associates sued defendant, Sydwin N. Barton, to collect for credit which it had extended to Barton, for the purposes of gambling at its casino located in New Jersey.Appellee does not question either the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the New Jersey court which entered the judgment, nor did appellee repay any part of the debt, nor was the debt ever forgiven, released, or waived.(SeeThompson v. Safeway Enterprises, Inc., (1979), 67 Ill.App.3d 914, 24 Ill.Dec. 561, 385 N.E.2d 702.)On February 26, 1986, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a money judgment based on the indebtedness, in the amount of $11,333.44, plus costs, in favor of appellant and against appellee.On February 19, 1988, appellant filed its petition in the circuit court of Cook County seeking to register the New Jersey money judgment as a final Illinois judgment, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.(Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110, par 12-601 et seq.)Appellee resisted the filing of appellant's foreign judgment in Illinois, successfully arguing before the court that the loan upon which the foreign judgment was predicated was a gambling debt and, accordingly, void under the criminal law of Illinois, as well as being in violation of Illinois public policy.The circuit court judge agreed with the appellee's argument and entered judgment in its favor and against the appellant upon the authority of the criminal statute.Subsequently, appellant sought relief in this court.

The Criminal Code of 1961(Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 1-1, et seq.), states as follows:

"Gambling contracts void.(a) All promises, notes, bills, bonds, covenants, contracts, agreements, judgments, mortgages, or other securities or conveyances made, given, granted, drawn, or entered into, or executed by any person whatsoever, where the whole or any part of the consideration thereof is for any money or thing of value, won or obtained in violation of any Section of this Article are null and void.

(b) Any obligation void under this Section may be set aside and vacated by any court of competent jurisdiction, upon a complaint filed for that purpose, by the person so granting, giving, entering into, or executing the same, or by his executors or administrators, or by any creditor, heir, legatee, purchaser or other person interested therein; or if a judgment, the same may be set aside on motion of any person stated above, on due notice thereof given.

(c) No assignment of any obligation void under this Section may in any manner affect the defense of the person giving, granting, drawing, entering into or executing such obligation, or the remedies of any person interested therein."Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 28-7.

The sole question to be decided is to what extent an Illinois trial court may refuse enforcement of a valid judgment of a sister state because the judgment seeks to enforce a gambling debt, valid where rendered, but contrary to the statutes and public policy of Illinois.

It is our view that the circuit court's ruling finds no support in the decided cases.The court's language in Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Coronet Insurance Co.(1969), 106 Ill.App.2d 24, 30-31, 245 N.E.2d 629, 632, could not have been more clear:

"The initial filing in the case before us, and the proceeding following such filing, was in Louisiana.When plaintiff Employers' came to Illinois they already had a judgment against Coronet, and the action in Illinois was not a direct action against Coronet under the direct action statute of Louisiana, but was a proceeding on a Louisiana judgment in Illinois.The original action in Louisiana merged into or became part of the Louisiana judgment, and when the judgment came before the court in Illinois [which prohibited the filing of a direct action against an insurance company], it had the character of a Louisiana money judgment and was not a direct act in Illinois as against defendant insurance company.* * * [W]e believe that for the purposes of an action on a foreign judgment in Illinois the court will not look behind the judgment itself to examine the nature of the cause of action."

The Employers' court went on to hold:

"It is apparent, therefore, that the public policy of the State of Illinois as expressed in the statute as applied in the case before us, is not to be considered when a party proceeds in Illinois to register a judgment obtained in a foreign State."106 Ill.App.2d at 34, 245 N.E.2d at 634.

Plaintiff's petition to the circuit court did not invoke the issue of judicial comity, nor was the circuit court petitioned to register plaintiff's New Jersey judgment in Illinois out of deference or respect to the laws of New Jersey, but, rather, plaintiff sought to register the New Jersey judgment under the authority of the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.The full faith and credit clause provides "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. * * *"U.S. Const., art. IV, section 1.

The circuit court, accordingly, was compelled to register plaintiff's New Jersey money judgment in Illinois as a final judgment under this constitutional mandate.

As Justice Schaefer stated, the full faith and credit clause represents a constitutional embodiment of the Federal policy that, unless judgments receive interstate recognition:

"[T]he insulated judicial systems of the several States may become sanctuaries within which obligations that have been fully and fairly adjudicated in another jurisdiction may be escaped."Light v. Light(1958), 12 Ill.2d 502, 510, 147 N.E.2d 34, 39.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the full faith and credit clause requires a state court to give the judgment of a sister state the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force as the judgment has by law or usage in the state from which it was taken.SeeChristmas v. Russell(1866), 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 290, 18 L.Ed. 475;Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.(1917), 243 U.S. 93, 37 S.Ct. 344, 61 L.Ed. 610.

The Supreme Court resolved the issues raised by plaintiff's petition more than 80 years ago, when the Court invoked the full faith and credit clause to require a state court to recognize and enforce a judgment of a sister state even though the judgment was based upon an original cause of action which was illegal in the state in which the enforcement was sought, in that it was a transaction involving gambling.(SeeFauntleroy v. Lum(1908), 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039.)That case sets forth the law that stands today.

In Fauntleroy, the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a transaction in the State of Mississippi.The transaction involved trading on cotton futures, which were deemed to be a gambling transaction under the Mississippi law and, consequently, illegal and unenforceable under it.The plaintiff brought a civil action on the...