Case Title: Omega Leasing Corp. v. Movie Gallery, Inc.

Citation: 859 So. 2d 421

Docket Number: 1012102

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2003-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
859 So. 2d 421 (2003)
OMEGA LEASING CORPORATION
v.
MOVIE GALLERY, INC.
1012102.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 24, 2003.
Rehearing Denied March 28, 2003.
J. Steven Wilkes and Rodney E. Nolen of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant. *422 Jeffrey M. Grantham and Brannon J. Buck of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Omega Leasing Corporation ("Omega") appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court's refusal to domesticate a default judgment in Omega's favor obtained in a Virginia trial courtand upheld by the Virginia Supreme Courtagainst Movie Gallery, Inc. ("Movie Gallery"). The Jefferson Circuit Court held that the issue of personal jurisdiction was not "fully and fairly litigated" in Virginia. We disagree, and we reverse and remand.
Article IV, § 1, of the Constitution of the United States requires that "[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the ... judicial proceedings of every other state." In Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 109, 84 S. Ct. 242, 11 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1963), the United States Supreme Court interpreted this provision, known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as follows:
Furthermore, the Court made it clear that whether a state extends full faith and credit to a judgment of another state depends only upon the existence of a full and fair litigation in the foreign state of the issues resolved by that judgment:
Durfee, 375 U.S.  at 111, 84 S. Ct. 242.
The nature of our review of the legal conclusions of a trial court is de novo. City of Russellville Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. Vernon, 842 So. 2d 627 (Ala.2002). However, given the above principles, the scope of our review in this case is limited to examining whether the issue of personal jurisdiction was "fully and fairly litigated and finally decided" in Virginia.
The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia, summarized the proceedings before it as follows:
(December 15, 1997, opinion letter of the Chesterfield Circuit Court, Virginia.)
The court granted a default judgment in favor of Omega, finding that Movie Gallery had been properly served but had failed to properly respond:
Id.
Regarding its exercise of personal jurisdiction over Movie Gallery, the court stated:
Id. (emphasis added).
Movie Gallery filed a petition for appeal in the Virginia Supreme Court; its *424 petition specifically raised, among other things, the issue whether the trial court had erred "in `implicitly' ruling that Movie Gallery is subject to personal jurisdiction in Virginia." (Movie Gallery's petition for appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.) The Virginia Supreme Court refused to grant an appeal, stating in its order:
(Emphasis added.) The court subsequently denied Movie Gallery's request for a rehearing.[1]
Subsequently, Omega sought to domesticate the judgment in Alabama by filing a "Notice of Filing Foreign Judgment" in the Jefferson Circuit Court. In response, Movie Gallery moved to set aside the foreign judgment, arguing that the Alabama court need not extend full faith and credit to the Virginia judgment because, it argued, the Virginia trial court had no personal jurisdiction over Movie Gallery. The Jefferson Circuit Court granted Movie Gallery's motion, holding that "the issue of the Chesterfield County, Virginia Circuit Court's personal jurisdiction over [Movie Gallery] was not fully and fairly litigated by the Virginia Court and, thus, the judgment of that Court is not entitled to full faith and credit by this Court, nor will it be enrolled." This appeal followed.
We hold that the issue whether the Virginia Circuit Court had personal jurisdiction over Movie Gallery was "fully and fairly litigated and finally decided" in Virginia. As stated above, at a hearing on Omega's motion to add Movie Gallery as a defendant, M.G.A., Inc., and Video World of Virginia (wholly owned subsidiaries of Movie Gallery) raised the issue whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Movie Gallery. The Virginia trial court allowed the amendment, later stating that in doing so the court had "implicitly" resolved the jurisdictional issue. The trial court's resolution of the jurisdictional issue was then properly and specifically raised as error on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, which, in refusing to grant the appeal, found "no reversible error." These facts indicate that the issue of personal jurisdiction over Movie Gallery was sufficiently litigated by the Virginia courts and that the Virginia judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in the State of Alabama. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORE, C.J., and LYONS, JOHNSTONE, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.
[1]  It is undisputed that the Virginia judgment is a final judgment for the purposes of res judicata. See Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 413, 419, 417 S.E.2d 302, 305 (1992) (stating that "a judgment is not final for the purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel when it is being appealed or when the time limits fixed for perfecting the appeal have not expired").