Thompson v. Safeway Enterprises, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-338,77-338
• Citation: 67 Ill.App.3d 914,24 Ill.Dec. 561,385 N.E.2d 702
• Parties: , 24 Ill.Dec. 561 A. Robert THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. SAFEWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Counterplaintiff-Appellant, v. A. Robert THOMPSON, Counterdefendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 702

385 N.E.2d 702

67 Ill.App.3d 914, 24 Ill.Dec. 561

A. Robert THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

SAFEWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Counterplaintiff-Appellant, v. A. Robert THOMPSON, Counterdefendant-Appellee.

No. 77-338.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Sept. 27, 1978.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 31, 1979.

Ralph G. Scheu, Ward P. Fisher and Brandel, Olson, Johnson & Erickson, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Foran, Wiss & Schultz, Chicago (Thomas A. Foran, Robert E. Wiss and Lori Stone, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

SIMON, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court as modified on the denial of a petition for rehearing:

This appeal is from an order dismissing defendant's counterclaims in an action brought under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 77, pars. 88-105), (the Act), to register a judgment rendered against defendant by a Florida court.

Plaintiff, A. Robert Thompson, and defendant, Safeway Enterprises, Inc. (Enterprises), entered into a written contract under which Enterprises purchased shares of its capital stock from Thompson. The purchase price was to be paid to Thompson in installments. As part of this contract, Thompson acknowledged that Enterprises was involved in negotiations for the sale of South Suburban Safeway Lines, Inc. (South Suburban), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprises of which Thompson was president, and agreed not to do anything which would in any way interfere with the sale of South Suburban.

Defendant refused to pay installments due Thompson under the contract covering the stock purchase, and Thompson commenced an action in Florida seeking damages for anticipatory breach of the contract. Defendant counterclaimed alleging that Thompson had breached his contractual duty not to interfere with the negotiations for the sale of South Suburban. After the cause was set for trial, defendant requested a continuance because various witnesses, whose testimony was necessary for a proper presentation of the counterclaim, could not be present to testify on the date set for trial. When the Florida court denied the motion, defendant took a voluntary dismissal of its counterclaim without prejudice, and a final judgment was entered in favor of Thompson.

Thompson then commenced the present action in Cook County to register the Florida judgment. Defendant filed counterclaims in the registration proceeding alleging that Thompson breached his duties under the contract and committed a tortious interference with prospective economic advantages by interfering with the negotiations for the sale of South Suburban. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Thompson on his petition to register the Florida judgment and dismissed defendant's counterclaims.

Thompson contends that the counterclaims in the registration proceeding are an improper collateral attack upon the Florida judgment in violation of the Act and the full faith and credit clause of Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. Defendant responds that section 8 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 77, par. 95) permits its counterclaims to be pleaded in opposition to Thompson's petition to register the Florida judgment. Section 8 provides any counterclaim, which under the laws of Illinois may be asserted by a defendant on an action on a foreign judgment, may be asserted against a petition to register a foreign judgment. Thus, the issue presented by this appeal is whether under Illinois law counterclaims such as defendant's may be pleded in response to a petition to register a foreign judgment.

The purpose of the Act, which is largely an adoption of the 1948 Uniform Act of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (See Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 77, par. 88, Historical Note, at 509 (Smith-Hurd (1966)) was to implement the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution and to facilitate the interstate enforcement of judgments by providing a summary procedure through which a party in whose favor a judgment has been rendered may enforce that judgment in an expeditious manner in any jurisdiction where the judgment debtor is found. (Light v. Light (1957), 12 Ill.2d 502, 147 N.E.2d 34; Brownlee v. Western Chain Co. (1977), 49 Ill.App.3d 247, 7 Ill.Dec. 635, 364 N.E.2d 926; La Verne v. Jackman (1967), 84 Ill.App.2d 445, 450, 228 N.E.2d 249.) Under the doctrine of full faith and credit, the forum court will not rehear a case on its merits because the judgment is Res judicata as to the nature and the amount of the plaintiff's claim. (Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Woodstock, Inc. (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 86, 89, 339 N.E.2d 423.) A judgment debtor may defend against a foreign judgment sought to be enforced in an Illinois court, but not on grounds which could have been presented in the action in which the judgment was rendered. (Southern Bell Telephone.) The judgment is not subject to collateral attack except for the defenses of fraud in the procurement of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction in the court rendering it. Carlson v. Prestige Casualty Co. (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 926, 329 N.E.2d 477; Davis v. Nehf (1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 318, 302 N.E.2d 382.

Defendant's counterclaims do not directly attack the Florida judgment. In fact, defendant concedes in this court that the Florida judgment is "good." Thus, defendant in effect admits not only that its pleadings are a collateral attack on the Florida judgment, but that they fail to allege fraud in the procurement of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction in the Florida court the only grounds, other than payment, release, waiver or discharge, which can be asserted in response to a registration proceeding.

The provision for counterclaims in section 8 of the Act is not co-extensive with the word "counterclaim" as used in section 38 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110, par. 38). Section 1 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110, par. 1) informs us that the Civil Practice Act does not apply to "proceedings in which the procedure is regulated by separate statutes." The procedure governing actions on foreign judgments is, of course, regulated by the Act, and, therefore, the Civil Practice Act, by its terms, would not be applicable to an action of that type.

In Raymond v....