Title: Hall v. McCormick

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-600


John R. & Joan W. Hall                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Orange Superior Court

John W.S. McCormick                          April Term, 1990


David A. Jenkins, J.

Timothy Martin of Carroll, George & Pratt, Rutland, for plaintiffs-
  appellees

Reid & Balivet, Newbury, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant appeals from the grant of summary judgment that
upheld a New York judgment arising out of defendant's breach of an agreement
to purchase real property.  Defendant asserts that the New York judgment
should not have been accorded full faith and credit.  We disagree and
affirm.
     On December 9, 1987 plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against
defendant in the New York Supreme Court for Onondaga County in the amount of
$171,628.  Defendant moved in that court to vacate the judgment, and on
April 19, 1988 the court entered an order conditionally vacating the
default.  The conditions included defendant's payment of the amount of
$76,840 by May 31, 1988 and thereafter his payment of $750 per month on the
underlying indebtedness.  The order stated that if the May 31, 1988 payment
was not met, "then defendant's motion shall be withdrawn voluntarily with
prejudice, it being understood that the defendant has expressly waived any
right to appeal from this order."
     The initial payment was not made, nor were subsequent monthly payments
made.  Plaintiff brought the present action on the New York money judgment
in the Rutland Superior Court on July 26, 1989.  Defendant's principal
defense to the Vermont suit was that the April 19, 1988 New York order was
based on unauthorized stipulations and agreements of his counsel before the
New York Supreme Court.  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on grounds
that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the New York
judgment was entitled to full faith and credit.  The motion was granted, and
the present appeal followed.
     Defendant argues on appeal that the New York judgment was not entitled
to full faith and credit because:  (1) he did not receive notice of the
motion for summary judgment that led to the December 9, 1987 default
judgment; and (2) he did not authorize his attorney to stipulate to the
order to vacate on the terms announced by the New York court in its April
18, 1988 order.  Neither argument is persuasive.  Normally, a foreign
judgment "is entitled to full faith and credit in the absence of a showing
that that court lacked jurisdiction or acted to deprive defendant of a
reasonable opportunity to be heard."  Wursthaus, Inc. v. Cerreta, 149 Vt.
54, 58,