Pan Am World Services, Inc. v. Abdell

• Decision Date: 10 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. CA-8567,CA-8567
• Citation: 522 So.2d 1177
• Parties: PAN AM WORLD SERVICES, INC. v. Edward A. ABDELL. 522 So.2d 1177
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1177

522 So.2d 1177

PAN AM WORLD SERVICES, INC. v. Edward A. ABDELL.

No. CA-8567.

522 So.2d 1177

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

March 10, 1988.

W. Clay McGehee, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Louis H. Schultz, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

Before GARRISON, LOBRANO and WILLIAMS, JJ.

GARRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a January 26, 1987 judgment of the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, making a foreign judgment executory under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act as enacted in Louisiana at R.S. 13:4241 et seq. The specific foreign judgment sought to be made executory is an "Agreed ¹ Judgment" issued by the Circuit Court of Hancock County, Mississippi in Case No. 9232 Pan Am World Services, Inc. v. Edward A. Abdell. The "Agreed Judgment" dated January 15, 1986 was signed first by Circuit Court Judge G. Ruble Griffin and then by Pan Am World Services, Inc. through its counsel and finally by Edward A. Abdell, unrepresented. The judgment grants damages in the amount of $11,374.57 from Abdell as a result of a contract for services and labor to be supplied to Pan Am in conjunction with a contract to be performed at the National Space Technology Laboratories in Hancock County, Mississippi.

From the Civil District Court judgment, defendant Edward Abdell appeals. On appeal and apparently for the first time represented by counsel, defendant makes a two-fold argument:

1. The Agreed Judgment rendered by the Mississippi Court is an absolute nullity because it was obtained by fraud and ill practices against a defendant who was never served with process and who had not entered a general appearance;

AND

2. Inasmuch as the foreign judgment is an absolute nullity, the Orleans Parish judgment making the Mississippi judgment executory is also an absolute nullity and should therefore be reversed.

In the instant case counsel for defendant argues that he signed two documents a "Waiver of Process, Entry of Appearance and Joinder in Prayer" and an "Agreed Judgment" under duress resulting from the trickery and threats of plaintiff and that defendant was never served with the petition in the Hancock County suit. Defendant seeks to have this Court declare the Mississippi "Agreed Judgment" an absolute nullity. This we cannot do as it is beyond the jursidiction of this Court.

C.C.P.Art. 2006 provides that an action to annul "... must be brought in the trial court...." Although the article does not expressly state "in the trial court which rendered the judgment" our jurisprudence has consistently so held. This follows the rule of Art. 608 Section 3 Title I of Part 2 of the Code of Practice of 1923. That Article provided that the nullity of judgment was demandable only in the court by which the judgment was rendered. In the case of foreign judgments, a Louisiana court is powerless to nullify a judgment of her sister states. McKisson v. McKisson, 179 La. 593, 154 So. 618 (La., 1934); Navarette v. Joseph Laughlin, Inc., 20 So.2d 313 (La.App., 1944); Swain v. Swain, 339 So.2d 453 (La.App.1st, 1976). In order to nullify the Mississippi judgment on the grounds of fraud and ill practices, defendant must file a suit to annul in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, Mississippi. Should defendant file such a suit in Mississippi, then the execution of judgment in Louisiana could be stayed as provided in R.S. 13:4242.

Having so concluded, the second half of defendant's argument need not be addressed except to note that the two mail notices sent to defendant as required under R.S. 13:4242 were sent to addresses not that of the defendant. Thus it...