IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2016-CA-00734-COA EAGLE GREEN ENERGY, INC. APPELLANT

v. FORSITE DEVELOPMENT, INC., REVENTURE PARK INVESTMENTS I, LLC, AND CLEAN ENERGY, LLC APPELLEES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PRENTISS GREENE HARRELL COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOLLY W . MATTHEW S III ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: F. DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/29/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ. CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Eagle G reen Energy Inc. ( E a g l e Green) appeals the May 3, 2016 f inal o rder of

the Jef f erson Davis County Circuit Court. In its order, the circuit court h e l d that a prior judgm ent issued by a North Carolina c ourt, a nd l ater e n rolled i n the Jef f erson Davis County Circuit Court, constituted a valid judgm ent in Mississippi. The j udgm ent at issue provided that Eagle Green m

ust pay Forsite Developm ent Inc., R eventure Park I nvestm ents I, LLC, and C lean Energy LLC (collectively , Forsite) $25,000 in actual dam ages and an additional $25,000 in punitive d am ages. Eagle Green now claim s that the N orth Carolina j udgm ent should not be given f

ull f aith and credit.¶2. Finding no error, we af f irm the circuit court’s judgm ent. FACTS ¶3. Forsite, a N orth Carolina corporation, initiated this civil action seeking to recover the $25,000 Forsite paid to Eagle Green, a Mississippi corporation. F orsite f iled a m otion in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of Mecklenburg County , North Carolina, seeking an entry of d ef

ault against Eagle Green. The superior-court clerk entered the def ault on January

16, 2015. ¶4. On January 21, 2015, E agle Green f iled a n answer asserting t h a t t h e s u perior court lacked j urisdiction over Eagle G reen, since Eagle Green is a M i s sissippi corporation that only does business in Mississippi. E agle Green also initiated a cross-claim against Forsite f or the

am ount of

$35,000. ¶5. On January

28, 2015, Forsite m oved f or a def ault judgm e nt and also f

iled a m otion to dism i ss and/or strike the answer and cross-claim f iled by Eagle Green. ¶6. On March 26, 2015, the superior court entered an order and f i nal judgm e nt (“North Carolina judgm ent”) g rant i n g F o rsite’s m otion to dism iss Eagle Green’s answer and counterclaim and also granting Forsite’s m otion f o r a def ault judgm ent. The superior court also awarded Forsite $25,000 in actual dam a g es and $25,000 in punitive dam ages. ¶7. As set f

orth i n the North Carolina judgm ent, t he s u perior court f

ound that Eagle Green deposited a $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 check paid b y Forsite to Eagle Green, but t hen Eagle Green f ailed to provide the item s paid f

or by Forsite. The North Carolina judgm e nt ref lects that on July 15, 2014, and Novem

ber 21, 2014, Forsite dem a nded that Eagle Green return the $25,000, but

2Eagle Green ref used. As a result, the superior court f ound that [ Eagle Green] wrongf

ully converted the f

unds to its own use by : (a) the unauthorized r etention of t he f unds af t er [ Forsite] m ade dem and f or return of the f

unds; (b) the unauthorized e xercise of a right of ownership o ver the f unds belonging to [ Forsite]; and ( c ) the unauthorized exclusion of [ Forsite] f r om exercising their r i g h t o f ownership over the f

unds[

. ] The superior court thus f

ound that Forsite incurred dam ages in the am ount of $25,000. ¶8. The s uperior court a lso awarded Forsite an additional $25,000 in p u n i t i v e dam ages af ter determ ining that E agle Green’s “wrongf u l acts were done intentionally or willf ully or wantonly or with m alice, or any

com bination thereof

[ .]” ¶9. In its judgm ent, the s u p e r i o r court acknowledged E agle Green’s assertion that the superior court lacked jurisdiction over Eagle Green, since E agle Green i s a M i s sissippi corporation onl y d o i n g b usiness in Mississippi. T he superior court e xplained that Eagle
Green cannot object t o the j u r i s d i c t i on of t he superior court “and at t he sam e tim e seek to invoke the j urisdiction of [ the] court” by f iling a c r oss-claim against Forsite. The North Carolina judgm e nt also ref lects that Forsite “properly obtained” service of process on Eagle
Green. ¶10. On June 3, 2 015, Forsit e e n r o l l e d t h e N orth Carolina j udgm ent in Jef f erson Davis County , Mississippi. ¶11. Af ter Eagle Green f

a iled to m ake p ay

m ents t oward the s a t i s f

a c t i o n o f t h e N orth Carolina judgm ent, Forsite f iled a m otion f

o r a judgm e n t debtor exam ination in the circuit

3court o n July 20, 2015. In response, the c i r c u i t c ourt entered an order instructing Eagle

Green to produce various specif ied docum e nts to Forsite. The r e c o r d contains a proof of

sum m ons dated Septem

b er 28, 2015, ref

lecting that the process server served t h e c i rcuit court’s order upon a registered agent f or Eagle Green. 1 ¶12. O n J a nuary 20, 2016, the circuit court issued a writ of garnishm e n t u p o n E a g l e Green’s account at Hancock Bank t o r e c o v er the am o unt set f orth i n the N orth Carolina judgm ent. ¶13. O n F e b r

u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 , Eagle Green f iled a n answer, injunctive r e q u e s t , a n d counterclaim against Forsite and Hancock Bank, claim ing that Eagle Green f a iled to actually
possess the $57,603.48 that Hancock B a n k g a r n ished f rom Eagle Green’s account. Eagle
Green e xplained that it held the f unds at issue in a trust f

or Louis Ho, a custom er of Eagl e Green. Eagle Green also a sked the circuit court to d eclare the North C arolina judgm ent void, since the superior court lacked jurisdiction over Eagle Green. ¶14. On March 10, 2016, Forsite f iled a m o tion f

o r a judgm ent on t he p leadings seeking dism issal of Eagle Green’s request f or the injunction and counterclaim

. F orsite also f iled a

m otion requesting the circuit court to issue an o rder authorizing and directing Hancock Bank

to disburse the f

unds that it had seized f

rom E agle Green’s account as a result o f t he writ of garnishm e nt. The circuit court held a hearing on this m otion on April 19, 2016.

1 T h e reco r d ref

lects th at o n A u g u st 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 , th e d e p u ty s h erif f f illed o u t a sh erif

f ’s retu rn in d icatin g th at h e w as u n ab le to serv e co p ies o f th e o rd er su stain in g F o r site’s m o tio n f o r a j u d g m en t d e b to r ex am i n a t i o n u p o n E ag le G r een . O n S ep tem b er 2 , 2 0 1 5 , th e circu it co u rt issu ed a seco n d o r d er, w h ich p ro v id ed a n ew an d co rrected a d d ress f o r E ag le G reen ’s reg istered ag en t. 4¶15. Af

ter a h e a r i ng, the c ircuit court entered an order on May 3, 2 016, deny i ng Eagle
Green’s counterclaim , its request to void the North Carolina judgm ent, and its request f or an injunction. The circuit court a lso ordered Hancock B ank to tender the garnished proceeds of $56,964.14 to the circuit clerk f or delivery t o Forsite’s counsel. ¶16. I n its order, the circuit judge addressed Eagle Green’s req u e s t t o v o i d t h e N o r t h Carolina judgm ent, explaining [ P]ursuant to Miss[ issippi] Code Ann[ o tated section] 11-7-301 , a f o reign judgm ent is a judgm ent of a court of the United States w hich i s entitled t o f ull f aith and credit in this state. Once a f o r e i g n j u dgm ent has been f iled i n the of f i c e o f the clerk of the circuit court of any county in Mississippi, the clerk shall treat the f

oreign judgm ent in the sam e m a nner a s a judgm ent of the circuit court of any county i n this s t a t e ( M i ss. Code A nn. § 1 1-7-303.). Theref ore, any jurisdictional issues c oncerning the validity of t he North Carolina judgm ent m

ust b e adjudicated in the S uperior Court of Mecklenburg County , North Carolina, where said judgm ent was rendered. ¶17. The circuit c ourt also provided “that a def ault judgm e nt is given the sam e ef f ect as if

a verdi c t w a s e n t e red f

or the plaintif

f and a c cordingly can have p reclusive e f f ect on other litigation[ .]” The circuit court f ound t hat Eagle Green f

ailed to f i le a direct appeal of the def ault judgm ent. A s a result, the circuit court held that Eagle Green “cannot sim ply f ail to def end a suit and f

ail to appeal a def

ault j udgm ent, and later f ile suit and argue that the def ault judgm e nt was obtained by f raud or abuse of

process.” ¶18. The circuit court f urther held that Eagle Green’s count e r c l a i m w a s b a r r e d by res judicata and also tim e-barred. The circuit court cited Mississippi Rule of C ivil Proce d u r e 60(b) 2 and f

ound:

2 R u le 6 0 (b ) p ro v i d es, in p ertin en t p art:

5The N or t h C a rolina Judgm ent at issue was entered in the General Court of

Justice, Superior Court Division of Mecklenburg County , N orth Carolina on March 26, 2015 and enrolled in the judg m ent records of Jef f erson Davis County Circuit C ourt on June 3, 2015. [ Eagle Green’s] Motion to Set Aside the Judgm ent was not f

i led u n t i l F ebruary 24, 2016 and is theref o re tim e barred pursuant to . . . Rule 60(b). ¶19. Finally , the circuit court stated that the court reviewed and r eceived m onthly bank statem e n t s t h a t the Hancock Bank account was [ E agle Green’s] b usiness o p e r a t i n g account, f rom which [ Eagle Green] rout i n e ly wrote checks f or its business debts. There is no indication of any kind o n the a ccount that it i s a c om pany trust account f

or the benef it of any third parties.
As a result, the circuit court ordered that Hancock B an k d isburse the garnished f unds to Forsite’s attorney

. ¶20. Eagle Green now appeals the circuit court’s order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶21. On appeal, we review jurisdictional questions de novo . Sapukotana v. S apukotana , 179 So. 3d 1105, 1111 (¶17) (Miss. 2 015). “ T h i s C ourt is in the sam e position as the trial

O n m o tio n an d u p o n su ch term s a s are j u st, t h e co u r t m ay r eliev e a p arty o r h is leg al r ep re s e n t a t i v e f

ro m a f in al j u d g m e n t, o rd er, o r p ro ceed in g f o r th e f o llo w in g r easo n s: (1 ) f

rau d , m isrep resen tatio n , o r o th er m isco n d u ct o f an ad v erse p arty ; (2 ) accid en t o r m istak e ; (3 ) n e w ly d isco v ered ev id en ce w h ich b y d u e d ilig en ce co u l d n o t h a v e b een d isco v ered in t im e to m o v e f o r a n ew t r i a l u n d er R u le 5 9 (b ); ( 4 ) th e j u d g m e n t i s v o id ; (5 ) th e j u d g m en t h as b e e n satisf ied , r e leased , o r d isch arg ed , o r a p rio r j u d g m en t u p o n w h ich it i s b ased h as b een rev ersed o r o t h e r w i s e v acated , o r i t is n o lo n g er eq u itab l e th at th e j u d g m en t sh o u ld h av e p ro sp ectiv e ap p licatio n ; (6 ) a n y o th er reaso n j u stif y in g relief f ro m th e j u d g m en t.
T h e m o tio n sh all b e m ad e w ith in a reaso n ab le tim e, an d f o r reaso n s (1 ) , (2 ) an d (3 ) n o t m o re th an six m o n th s af ter th e j u d g m en t, o rd er, o r p ro ceed in g w as en tered o r tak en . 6c o urt, with all f acts set out in the pleadings o r exhibits.” Head & Engquist Equip. v
. Penelore Corp ., 864 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
DISCUSSION ¶22. “Mississippi m

ust give f ull f aith and credit to a l l f

inal judgm e nts of o ther states and
f ederal courts unless (1) t h e f o r eign judgm ent itself was obtained as a r esult of som e f alse
represen t a t i o n w i thout which the judgm ent w ould not have been rendered, or (2) ‘the rendering court did not have jurisdiction over the parties in the subject m atter.’” Schwartz

v. Hynum , 933 So. 2d 1039, 1 042 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (internal citation o m i tted); see U.S. Const. a rt. I V, § 1. Additionally , “[ i]t is well settled that a judgm ent rendered by a court

o f c om petent jurisdiction i n a sister state is entitled to a presum ption of v alidity as to t h a t court’s a ssum

ption of jurisdiction, and the burden is on the party a ttacking the judgm ent to af f irm atively s how its invalidity .” Galbraith & Dickens Aviation Ins. v. Gulf Coast Aircraft Sales Inc ., 3 96 So. 2d 1 9 , 2 1 ( M i s s . 1981); see also L inde Health Care Staffing Inc. v. Claiborne Cty. Hosp ., 198 So. 3d 318, 324 (¶25) (Miss. 2016). ¶23. W e theref

ore m u st e xam ine whether the f oreign judgm ent herein “was obtained a s a result of som e f

alse representation” or whether “the rendering c o urt did not have jurisdiction

over the parties,” which would then prevent this Court f rom giving f

ull f aith and credit to the North Carolina judgm ent. Schwartz , 933 So. 2d at 1 042 ( ¶9). T h is C ourt m u st p resum e the

s u perior court’s exercise of jurisdiction h erein to be valid. Galbraith , 396 So. 2d a t 2 1

. Eagle Green bears the burden of proving that the North Carolina judgm ent is invalid. Id

. ¶24. Eagle G reen argues that F o r s i t e ’ s f a i l u r e t o provide proper notice of t he default7judgm ent hearing in North Carolina constitutes a deliberate act o f deceit and f raud. Eagle
Green s u bm its that since it m ade an appearance in the m atter by f i l i n g its “Def

enses and Answer,” North Carolina law m andates t hat Forsite mu s t then provide Eagle Green with three day s’ notice o f the def ault-judgm ent hearing. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 55(b)(2)(a).
As a result, Eagle Green asserts that the North Carolina judgm ent should be f ound null and void. Eagle Green also argues t h a t the North Carolina judgm ent should be f ound null and void because the s uperior court f ailed to m ake a f

inding of clear and convincing e v i d ence bef ore awarding Forsite punitive dam ages. ¶25. W e f

ind no error i n the c ircuit court’s f inding that Eagle Green’s argum ents regarding lack of notice and p u n i t i v e d a mages are barred by res j udicata. 3 The circuit court cited to Rule 6 0(b) and explained that “ any action to set a side the captioned judgm ent on the grounds of f raud or m isrepresentation m ust be undertaken ‘not m o re than six (6) months af ter the judgm ent . . . was entered or taken.’” ¶26. The circuit court held that The North Carolina Judgm ent at issue w as entered i n t he [ superior court] of Mecklenburg County , N orth Carolina on March 26, 2015 and enrolled in the judgm ent records of Jef

f erson Davis Count y Circuit Court on J une 3. 2015. [ Eagle G reen’s] Motion t o S et Aside the Judgm e n t was n ot f iled until F ebruary 24, 2016 and is theref

o re tim e barred pursuant to . . . Rule 60(b). ¶27. Furtherm ore, p ursuant to Mississip p i C o d e A n n o t a t e d s e c tion 1 1-7-305(3) (Rev. 2004), Eagle G reen possessed twenty day s f rom the date of enrollm ent of t he North Carolina judgm ent to contest the enrollm ent. The r e c ord contains no m otion or appeal by Eagle Green

3 S ee S ch w a rtz , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d at 1 0 4 2

- 4 3 (¶¶1 2 -1 4 ). 8regarding the enrollm ent of the North Carolina judgm ent in the circuit court. Since Eagle

Green f ailed to contest the enrollm ent of the N orth Carolina judgm ent within the twenty day s allowed by

statute, we f

ind that its def

enses to the enrollm e nt were not properly bef ore the circuit court. See Schwartz , 933 So. 2d at 1042 (¶10). ¶28. Regarding jurisdiction, as stated, the circuit c ourt herein f o u n d t h a t Eagle Green’s “Def enses and Answer,” f

iled in response to Forsite’s m otion f or entry of def

ault in North Carolina, “ sought not only to assert a d ef ense, but also an af

f irm ative c laim

. . . i nvoking the jurisdiction of the N orth Carolina c o u r t

. ” H o w ever, the circuit court held that “any jurisdictional issues concerning the validity of the North Carolina judgm en t mu s t be adjudicated in the S uperior Court of M e c k l e n b urg County , North Carolina, where said judgm ent was rendered.” Like the circuit court below, we also f ind r es judicata d ispositive.
See Glob. Oceanic Enters. Inc. v. H ynum, 857 So. 2d 659, 663 (¶18) (Miss. 2003); Schwartz , 933 So. 2d at 1042-43 (¶¶12-14). ¶29. North Carolina General Statute section 1-277(b) provides that “[ a]ny interested party shall have the right of im m ediate appeal f rom an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the

court over the person or p roperty of the def endant o r such party m ay preserve h is e xception
f or determ ination upon any subsequent appeal in the cause.” N .C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b). The record bef

ore us ref lects no m otion f

or a new trial or direct a

p peal of t he N o r t h C a r o l ina judgm ent f

iled by Eagle Green. ¶30. Af ter our review, we f

ind that the circuit cour t d i d n o t e r r in giving f ull f aith and credit to the North Carolina judgm ent and ordering t h a t H a n c o c k Bank disburse the g arnished

9f

unds to Forsite’s attorney . Accordingly , we af f irm the circuit court’s judgm ent. ¶31. AFFIRMED.
L E E , C.J., IRVING, P.J., ISHEE, FAIR, G R EENLEE AND WESTBROOKS , JJ., CONCUR. BARNES AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR IN PART AND I N T HE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN O PINION. GRIFFIS, P.J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

1 0