U.S. v. Febre, 91-2716

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before CUMMINGS, FLAUM and MANION
• Citation: 978 F.2d 1262
• Parties: NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert J. FEBRE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 91-2716,91-2716
• Decision Date: 15 October 1992

Page 1262

978 F.2d 1262 NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert J. FEBRE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-2716. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued June 1, 1992.
Decided Oct. 15, 1992.

Before CUMMINGS, FLAUM and MANION, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In November 1983, Robert Febre pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Ohio to ten counts of a sixty-one count indictment--including counts charging mail fraud, conspiracy and income tax evasion. He was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment and a $100,000 fine, which he never paid. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the Ohio criminal fine judgment was registered in the Northern District of Illinois in February 1989. In November 1990, Febre filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the registration in the Northern District of Illinois, claiming it is barred by the Illinois residual, five-year statute of limitations. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 13-205. The district court denied the motion, and Febre appeals. We affirm.

I.

On November 10, 1983, as part of a sentence for seven federal criminal convictions, the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio imposed a $100,000 criminal fine against Robert Febre. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1963, on February 27, 1989 the United States registered the judgment in the Northern District of Illinois.

Prior to the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1963, a successful litigant who wanted to enforce a district court's money judgment in another district had to bring a separate action on the judgment; the judgment creditor had to obtain "a judgment on a judgment." See generally Shanks and Standiford, Schizophrenia in Federal Judgment Enforcement: Registration of Foreign Judgments Under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, 59 Notre Dame L.Rev. 851, 857-60 (1984). This was often an expensive and time-consuming proposition. ITT Industrial Credit Co. v. Lawco Energy, Inc., 86 F.R.D. 708, 711 (S.D.W.Va.1980).

Today, a judgment creditor is still free to pursue an independent action to collect his judgment. In re Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Patco), 699 F.2d 539, 544 (D.C.Cir.1983). Section 1963, however, provides an alternative, streamlined method of enforcing one district court's judgment in another district:

A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any district court or in the Court of International Trade may be registered by filing a certified copy of such judgment in any other district or, with respect to the Court of International Trade, in any judicial district, when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner.

28 U.S.C. § 1963 (1988). ¹ Registration of a judgment under section 1963 "is a rapid procedure that does not require the intervention of a judge." Patco, 699 F.2d at 544. Upon receiving a certified copy of the judgment, the clerk of the court in which the judgment is being registered merely enters the sister court's judgment on the docket. Id.; Associated Business Telephone Systems Corp. v. Greater Capital Corp., 128 F.R.D. 63, 65 n. 3 (D.N.J.1989). Once a certified copy of the final judgment has been so registered, the judgment is treated as it if were an original judgment of the registering court. A registered judgment is equivalent to a new federal judgment obtained by filing an independent action on the original judgment; it has the same status as a judgment on a judgment. Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265, 268 & 270 (8th Cir.1965).

Section 1963 was enacted "to simplify and facilitate the enforcement of federal judgments, at least those for money, to eliminate the necessity and expense of a second lawsuit, and to avoid the impediments, such as diversity of citizenship, which new and distinct federal litigation might otherwise encounter." Id. at 270. See also Ohio Hoist Manufacturing Co. v. Lirocchi, 490 F.2d 105, 107 (6th Cir.1974) (section 1963 was "adopted to protect both judgment creditors and judgment debtors from the additional cost and harassment of further litigation which otherwise would be incident to an action on the judgment in a foreign district"), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 938 (1974). Under section 1963, a judgment creditor is not required to file a new complaint, serve the judgment debtor or establish an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Illinois has its own procedure for registering "foreign" judgments--a procedure much like the one that section 1963 was designed to bypass. To register a foreign judgment in an Illinois state court, one must file a new lawsuit, an "application for registration" of a foreign judgment. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, §§ 12-602, 12-603. A copy of the judgment must be attached to the application for registration, and the application must set forth the date the judgment was entered, any subsequent facts or legal proceedings affecting the judgment, and a prayer that the judgment be registered. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 12-603. The application for registration must be filed within five years from the time the foreign judgment was entered. Charles Ringer Co. v. McDonald, 537 N.E.2d 974, 975 (Ill.App.1989). The judgment debtor has 30 days after personal service of process to file objections to the registration. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 12-607. He may raise "[a]ny defense, set-off or counterclaim" available under Illinois law and such issues "shall be tried and determined as in other civil cases." Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 12-608. The registered judgment becomes a final judgment of the Illinois court and thus enforceable like any other Illinois judgment, if--after a trial on any defenses--the court refuses to set aside the registration. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch 110, § 12-607. The plaintiff then has seven years to enforce the final Illinois judgment. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 12-108.

II.

In 1989, the government registered the 1983 Northern District of Ohio criminal fine judgment in the Northern...