1. Lecture 24 Dec. 5, 2018

2. interjurisdictional preclusion full faith and credit

3. Full Faith and Credit state for sister state – Art. IV, sect
Full Faith and Credit state for sister state – Art. IV, sect. 1 federal for state – 28 U.S. Code § state for federal – Supremacy Clause?

4. Fauntleroy v Lum (US 1908)

5. Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid
Anglo-Am Provision v Davis NY could refuse jurid. to out of state corporate Ps for suits on judgments rendered out of state between out of state corp’s where the original cause of action arose out of state

6. upshot of Fauntleroy: so no PPE against respecting suits on sister state judgments (setting aside refusal of jurisdiction)

7. Yarborough v Yarborough (US 1933)

8. First. It was contended below in the trial court, and there held, that the provision of the decree of the Georgia court directing the payment to R. D. Blowers, trustee, of $1,750 to be “expended by him in his discretion for the benefit of the minor child, including her education, support, maintenance, medical attention and other necessary items of expenditure,” was not intended to relieve the father from all further liability to support Sadie. This contention appears to have been abandoned.

9. Third. It is contended that the Georgia decree is not binding upon Sadie, because she was not a formal party to the suit, was not served with process, and no guardian ad litem was appointed for her therein. In Georgia, as elsewhere, a property right of a minor can ordinarily be affected by legal proceedings only if these requirements are complied with.

10. can a child support judgment ever really be final?

11. is SC treating the Ga judgment any worse than its own judgments?

12. Stone, J., dissenting
“For present purposes, we may take it that the Georgia decree, as the statutes and decisions of the state declare, is unalterable, and, as pronounced, is effective to govern the rights of the parties in Georgia. But there is nothing the decree itself or in the history of the proceedings which led to it to suggest that it was rendered with any purpose or intent to regulate or control the relationship of parent and child, or the duties which flow from it, in places outside the State of Georgia where they might later come to reside.”

13. “It would be going further than this Court has been willing to go in any decision to say that the power of a state to pass judgment upon the sanity of its own citizen could be foreclosed by an earlier judgment of the court of some other state dealing with the same subject matter.”

14. “Parties who have in one state litigated the proper construction of a will disposing of realty are not, by the judgment there, concluded in another state where the testator's realty is located. Nor will a divorce decree seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to realty be conclusive with respect to land outside the state. The interest of a state in controlling all the legal incidents of real property located within its boundaries is deemed so complete and so vital to the exercise of its sovereign powers of government within its own territory as to exclude any control over them by the statutes or judgments of other states.”

15. “More than once, this Court has approved the doctrine that a state need give no effect to judgments for conviction of crime or for penalties procured in a sister state.”

16. Georgia has mutuality requirement for issue preclusion
Alabama does not
P sues D in Georgia state court
D is found negligent
P2 sues D in Alabama state court concerning same accident
may P2 issue preclude D from relitigating his negligence?

17. Durfee v Duke (US 1963)

18. but assume that the property was really in MO that means the Neb ct had not jurisdiction how can its decision that it has jurisdiction be binding?

19. personal jurisdiction

20. subject matter jurisdiction

21. - P sues D in federal court - there is no federal SMJ but no one notices - the time for appeal is over - P then sues D in state court on the federal judgment - can D collaterally attack the judgment for lack of SMJ?

22. Kalb v Feuerstein (US 1940)
State ct took jurisd over a foreclosure proceeding – as a result farmer lost farm
State judgment not given FF&C because at the time a bankruptcy action was pending, which deprived state ct of jurisd
State court was unaware of bankruptcy action
as dictum SCt said that even if state ct found that it had jurisd over an action despite bankruptcy, the judgment could be ignored

23. judgment in Calif. state ct FF&C ignored, resulting in an incompatible judgment in Nevada state ct Which judgment should an Oregon state ct respect?

24. Clarke v. Clarke (US 1900)

25. How to make Clarke compatible with Fauntleroy?

26. “This is but to contend that what cannot be done directly can be accomplished by indirection, and that the fundamental principle which gives to a sovereignty an exclusive jurisdiction over the land within its borders is in legal effect dependent upon the nonexistence of a decree of a court of another sovereignty determining the status of such land. Manifestly, however, an authority cannot be said to be exclusive, or even to exist at all, where its exercise may be thus frustrated at any time.”

27. How to make Clarke compatible with Durfee?

28. Fall v Eastin (US 1909)

29. The husband violated the Wash. injunction
The husband violated the Wash. injunction. Does the wife have no recourse?

30. Assume the wife bought suit against the husband in Nebraska state court to compel him to deed her the property (before he had deeded it to his sister). What result?

31. “Fall not having executed a deed, the court's conclusion was, to quote its language, that "neither the decree nor the commissioner's deed conferred any right or title upon her." This conclusion was deduced not only from the absence of power generally of the courts of one state over lands situate in another, but also from the laws of Nebraska providing for the disposition of real estate in divorce proceedings. In Cizek v Cizek it was held that portion of the decree which set off the homestead to the wife was absolutely void and subject to collateral attack, for the reason that no jurisdiction was given to the district court in a divorce proceeding to award the husband's real estate to the wife in fee as alimony.”

32. The sister knew about the injunction
The sister knew about the injunction. How can the transfer to her be valid? Doesn’t the husband still own the property?

33. Holmes, J., concurring
“The real question concerns the effect of the Washington decree. As between the parties to it, that decree established in Washington a personal obligation of the husband to convey to his former wife. A personal obligation goes with the person…”

34. But the Nebraska court carefully avoids saying that the decree would not be binding between the original parties had the husband been before the court. The ground on which it goes is that to allow the judgment to affect the conscience of purchasers would be giving it an effect in rem. It treats the case as standing on the same footing as that of an innocent purchaser. Now, if the court saw fit to deny the effect of a judgment upon privies in title, or if it considered the defendant an innocent purchaser, I do not see what we have to do with its decision, however wrong….

35. If you are in a non-situs state and wish the court to issue a judgment that will be subject to FF&C in the situs state, what do you do?

36. Return to Clarke - why wasn’t there jurisdiction over the persons, not the property?

37. Nancy B. Clarke, one of the parties to the suit in South Carolina, and whom the Connecticut court has held inherited, to the exclusion of the father, under the laws of Connecticut, the whole of the real estate belonging to her sister, was a minor. She was therefore incompetent, in the proceedings in South Carolina, to stand in judgment for the purpose of depriving herself of the rights which belonged to her under the law of Connecticut as to the real estate within that state… It cannot be doubted that the courts of a state where real estate is situated have the exclusive right to appoint a guardian of a nonresident minor, and vest in such guardian the exclusive control and management of land belonging to said minor, situated within the state.

38. Assume the SC court in Clarke had simply applied SC law and ordered the parties to divide the proceeds between the husband and the daughter. What result?

39. Baker v Gen Motors (US 1998)

40. In general, injunctions and equitable decrees are subject to FF&C

41. No “roving public policy exception” to FF&C

42. Is there any Michigan obligation that is relevant to this Missouri case at all?

43. Assume that in Michigan state court General Motors had brought a declaratory judgment action against the Bakers to determine whether Ewell could testify in any suit they might bring. What result?

44. African-American applicants to a fire dept sue the department
The court enters a decree for an affirmative action program in hiring
Subsequently white applicants to the fire department sue the department challenging the program
Are they precluded?

45. Even if there us a Michigan obligation that is relevant, isn’t the obligation modifiable in Michigan and so modifiable in MO?

46. Scalia’s opinion…

47. What if GM sued for a declaratory judgment in MO federal court determining the Ewell can’t testify in the Baker case?

48. substance and procedure in the recognition of judgments…

49. P sues D in Cal. , gets judgment D has no assets in Cal
P sues D in Cal., gets judgment D has no assets in Cal. D has house in Nev. P sues D on judgment in Nev., but under Nev. law houses cannot be used to satisfy judgments (in Cal. they can)

50. Anglo-Am Provision v Davis (US 1903)
NY ct allowed to refuse suit on foreign judgment between 2 foreign corps when judgment arose from cause of action arising out of state

51. Kenney v Supreme Lodge (US 1920)
Ill ct refused jurisdiction for suit on Alabama wrongful death judgment against an Illinoisan
basis was statute forbidding actions for death outside state

52. “Full faith and credit, however, does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the even-handed control of forum law.”

53. “Orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority.”