Watts v. Barrett Industries Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-1041,77-1041
• Citation: 376 N.E.2d 691,59 Ill.App.3d 1009,17 Ill.Dec. 545
• Parties: , 17 Ill.Dec. 545 G. Eugene WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARRETT INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 691

376 N.E.2d 691

59 Ill.App.3d 1009, 17 Ill.Dec. 545

G. Eugene WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARRETT INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 77-1041.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

April 27, 1978.

George S. Lalich, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas C. O'Brien, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

DIERINGER, Justice:

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Cook County. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's action for registration of a foreign judgment and quashed garnishment proceedings against the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the decision of the trial court.

The sole issue presented for review is whether or not the trial court erred in determining the Virginia court did not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the defendant.

The facts of the case are the plaintiff instituted an action for damages in the circuit court of Augusta County, Virginia, against the defendant, an Illinois corporation. The defendant did not have a registered agent in Virginia, nor was the defendant authorized to do business in Virginia, under the applicable Virginia statutes. The defendant did not appear or answer and the circuit court of Augusta County entered a judgment against the defendant in the amount of $21,036.25. Subsequent to that judgment, the defendant did appear by counsel and attempt to have the judgment vacated. After a hearing on the motion to vacate, the trial court in Virginia denied the motion to vacate. The defendant did not appeal from that decision of the trial court. The plaintiff then filed, in the circuit court of Cook County, a petition for the registration of the foreign judgment, pursuant to Illinois Law (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1975), ch. 77, sec. 88-105). The plaintiff also instituted garnishment proceedings against the defendant under Ill.Rev.Stat. (1975), ch. 77, secs. 88(c) and 93. After a hearing at which no witnesses or evidence were presented, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and quashed the garnishment proceedings.

The defendant argues the trial court was correct in dismissing the action because the trial court in Virginia did not have jurisdiction to enter the judgment against the defendant. The defendant does not deny doing business in Virginia, nor does the defendant deny the material allegations of the complaint. The defendant's sole question is whether or not the Virginia court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The question of jurisdiction when a foreign judgment is brought to the Illinois courts to be registered, is a matter open to inquiry by the trial court. There is, however, a presumption as to the validity of the judgment and it is up to the defendant to rebut this presumption. (Milliken v. Meyer (1940), 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278.) In the instant case the defendant cannot deny under the applicable laws of the State of Virginia, service of process was had upon the State Corporation Commission, as the agent for the defendant...