United Bank of Skyline v. Fales, C8-86-549

Decision Date28 October 1986
Docket NumberNo. C8-86-549,C8-86-549
Citation395 N.W.2d 131
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals
PartiesUNITED BANK OF SKYLINE, Respondent, v. David FALES, Defendant, Arthur J. Petrie, Appellant.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court did not err in refusing to vacate a Colorado judgment entered in Minnesota.

R. Michael Regan, Mankato, Wendell B. Porterfield, Denver, Colo., for respondent.

Daniel H. Meyer, Mankato, for defendant.

Russell E. Vigil, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and LANSING and CRIPPEN, JJ., with oral argument waived.

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Arthur Petrie appeals the denial of his motion to vacate a Colorado summary judgment against him, filed in Minnesota under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 548.26-.33 (1984). We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Arthur J. Petrie co-signed a promissory note in favor of respondent, United Bank of Skyline located in Denver, Colorado. Appellant is a resident of Mankato, Minnesota, and was involved in a Colorado building project. The debtors apparently defaulted on the loan and respondent foreclosed in Colorado on the real estate mortgaged to secure the loan. The bank purchased the property at the foreclosure sale for $485,000, the face amount of the note. However, after interest was added, there was a $51,000 deficiency. The bank brought a Colorado court suit against Petrie and his partner for the deficiency. The partner settled with respondent and is not a party to this appeal.

After cancellation of the trial, originally set for July 1985, the bank moved for summary judgment. The parties were notified of the motion and a hearing was conducted December 10, 1985. The court entered summary judgment in favor of respondent.

Appellant's counsel did not appear at the summary judgment hearing, submitted no reply to the motion, and claims he was not notified of the hearing. He was notified of the motion, and the record shows hearing notices were sent to Petrie's counsel at the address affixed to his pleadings.

Appellant moved the Colorado court to vacate the summary judgment and for a rehearing. The court heard appellant's motion on January 22, 1986 and refused to vacate the judgment. That Colorado decision was not appealed.

Respondent docketed the judgment in Blue Earth County on February 7, 1986, before expiration of the Colorado appeal period on denial of appellant's motion to vacate. On March 10, 1986, appellant made a motion in Minnesota for vacation of the judgment under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(6).

Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion and characterized the summary judgment as a default judgment. The trial court reasoned appellant was precluded from obtaining relief in Minnesota because he did not appeal the judgment in Colorado.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in refusing to vacate a Colorado judgment?

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that Minn.Stat. § 548.27 (1984), Minnesota's version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, authorizes this court to vacate the Colorado judgment under Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02. This rule provides:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party * * * from a final judgment * * * for the following reasons: (1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; * * * or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

The motion shall be made in a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment * * * was entered * * *.

Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02.

Petrie claims that because he did not receive notice of the hearing on the summary judgment motion, even though he was notified of the motion, provision (6) should operate in his favor. However, Minnesota courts have limited authority to vacate a foreign judgment.

Where Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02 may be used to reopen a Minnesota judgment, it may not apply in the same way to a foreign judgment. In Matson v. Matson, 333 N.W.2d 862 (Minn.1983) the supreme court noted that the language of Minn.Stat. § 548.27 does not allow the courts of this State to apply Rule 60.02 to "foreign judgments Appellant claims the Colorado court erred by granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. The Colorado court has considered but refused to vacate the judgment. That decision was never appealed in Colorado, even after Minnesota enforcement proceedings were initiated.

                in the same manner it is applied to judgments of the courts of this state."   Matson, 333 N.W.2d at 867.   Thus, foreign judgments are seldom subject to vacation except by the rendering court.   Id.  Moreover, clause (6) of Rule 60.02 may not be used to correct a judicial error that could have been corrected by appeal, the time for which has expired.   Cox v. Wright-Hennepin Coop.  Elec. Assn., 281 Minn. 568, 569, 161 N.W.2d 293 (1968)
                

The Minnesota Supreme Court has also held that irregularities which make a judgment voidable can be considered only by the court rendering the judgment. Jensen v. Murray, 250 Minn. 568, 570-71, 85 N.W.2d 825, 827 (1957). In Jensen, the appellant sought vacation of a Carver County judgment in Hennepin County. The supreme court reaffirmed its holding in an earlier case that the court of one county "may not interfere with process issued to enforce a judgment in an action in the district court of another county in the state, unless on the face of the record the judgment is void." Id. at 570, 85 N.W.2d at 827 (citing Wagner v. Farmers' Co-op. Exchange Co., 147 Minn. 376, 180 N.W. 231 (1920)). We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the determination here...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hankin v. Graphic Technology, Inc.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 8 d5 Janeiro d5 2010
    ...modification of foreign judgments. See Grynberg v. Shaffer, 216 Ariz. 256, 258-59, 165 P.3d 234 (2007); United Bank of Skyline v. Fales, 395 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Minn.App.1986); Data Management Systems, Inc. v. EDP Corp., 709 P.2d 377, 381 (Utah 1985) (K.S.A. 60-3007 specifically directs that t......
  • American Standard Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Speros
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 6 d3 Janeiro d3 1993
    ...Id. The local law of the forum determines the methods by which a judgment of another state is enforced. United Bank of Skyline v. Fales, 395 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) citing Jones v. Roach, 118 Ariz. 146, 150, 575 P.2d 345, 349 (Ct.App.1977) ["[P]rocedurally a foreign judgment is s......
  • State Inc. v. Sumpter & Williams
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 24 d2 Setembro d2 1996
    ...R. Civ. P. 60.02. "Thus, foreign judgments are seldom subject to vacation except by the rendering court." United Bank of Skyline v. Fales, 395 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Minn.App.1986) (citing Matson, 333 N.W.2d at 867), aff'd, 405 N.W.2d 416 The Minnesota Supreme Court has also held that irregularit......
  • Bailey v. Cox, No. A08-0518 (Minn. App. 2/3/2009)
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 3 d2 Fevereiro d2 2009
    ...State Inc. v. Sumpter & Williams, 553 N.W.2d 719, 722 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Nov. 20, 1996); United Bank of Skyline v. Fales, 395 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Minn. App. 1986), aff'd, 405 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1987). Accordingly, the district court did not review the substantive rulings of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT