The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor

- neutral citation by the Clerk of the Court for compliance with Rule 23

- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
Opinion Number:_______________ 2
Filing Date: December 1 3 , 2023 3

No. A

- 1

- CA

- 40004 4
WV 23 JUMPSTART, LLC, 5

Plaintiff

- Appellant, 6

v. 7
TIGER W. MYNARCIK; JILL 8 MYNARCIK; ANTIQUA, LLC; and 9 TRADEWIND COMPANIES, LLC, 10

Defendants

- Appellees. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 12 Francis J. Mathew, District Court Judge 13
Ferrance Law, P.C. 14 David A. Ferrance 15 Albuquerque, NM 16
for Appellant 17
The Simons Firm, LLP 18 Thomas A. Simons, IV 19 Frieda Scott Simons 20 Santa Fe, NM 21
for Appellees 22OPINION 1

BOGARDUS , Judge. 2

{1} Plaintiff WV 23 Jumpstart , LLC appeals the district court’s order granting 3
Defendants’ Tiger Mynarcik, Jill Mynarcik, Antiqua, LLC, and Tradewind 4
Companies, LLC’s (Defendants) motion for summary judgment and denying 5

Plaintiff’s counter

- motion for summary judgment. The district court determined that 6

Plaintiff could not domesticate and enforce a California state court judgment against 7
Defendant Tiger Mynarcik in New Mexico because (1) the judgment was a 8
ministerial registration of a Nevada state court money judgment and thus not entitled 9

to full faith and credit in New Mexico ; and (2) the original Nevada judgment was 10
expired and could not be registered in New Mexico. Plaintiff con tends that the 11
district court erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the Califo rnia judgment 12
because, under California law, registration of the Nevada judgment in California 13

state court rendered it an original California judgment , which is entitled to full faith 14

and credit in New Mexico. We agree with Plaintiff and reverse. 15

BACKGROUND 16

{ 2 } In 2010, a Nevada state court entered a judgment ( the Nevada judgment ) 17
against Defendants for $1,584,893. The same year, Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest 18
registered the Nevada judgment in California ( the California judgment) , pursuant to 19
California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act (SSMJ)

. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 202 §§ 1710.10 to 1712 ( West 1974, as amended 2023 ) . Plaintiff was then assigned the 1
rights to collect on the judgment by its predecessor in interest in May 2020. In July 2
2020, Plaintiff renewed the California judgment in the Superior Court of California, 3
which extended the enforceability of the judgment in California for an additional ten 4

years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § § 683.1 10 to 683.220 (West 1982, as amended 5
through 202 3 )

. 6

{ 3 } In November 2020, Plaintiff brought a common law action to domesticate and 7
enforce the California judgment in New Mexico district court. Plaintiff also sought 8
to void the 2017 transfer of property by Defendant Mynarcik to Defendant Antiqua, 9

LLC under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the Act)

. See NMSA 1978, 10
§ § 56

- 10

- 14 to

- 29 (2015). In response, Defendants filed two motions for summary 11
judgment. In the first motion, Defendants argued that the petition to domesticate the 12
foreign judgment was barred by the two

- year statute of limitations under Nevada 13

law for fraudulent transfers in accordance with the Act . The district court determined 14
that Defendant’s first motion was moot, but granted Defendant’s second motion, 15
concluding that the registration of the Nevada judgment in California was “ not a 16
personal money judgment rendered by a court, [but] more akin to a writ of execution 17

issued as a ministerial action by the clerk” and thus not entitled to full faith and cred it 183 in New Mexico courts. The district court also determined that the Nevada judgmen t 1
was expired and could not be registered in New Mexico. Plaintiff appeals. 1 2

DISCUSSION 3

{ 4 } The question before us is whether the California judgment is entitled to full 4
faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. As we 5
explain, we conclude that it is. 6

{ 5 } When no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a 7
question of law, we review the grant of summary judgment de novo . Cadle Co. v. 8

Seavall , 2019

- NMCA

- 062, ¶ 6, 450 P.3d 471. Moreover, whether a sister state 9
judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico is a question of law that 10

we review de novo. See Williams v. Crutcher , 2013

- NMCA

- 044, ¶ 9, 298 P.3d 1184 11

1 After the appeal was filed and all the briefing was complete, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim because the California j udgment was preliminarily dismissed pending appeal in the California courts. Defendants sought dismissal without prejudice pending the outcome of the appeal. This Court held the motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the submission of the briefing and the motions to the panel. Before this case was submitted to thi s panel, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District filed an opinion reversing the lower court’s decision and determining that the registration and renewal of the Nevada judgment in California was valid and enforceable. See WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik , 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402, 412 (Ct. App. 2022) (California case resolving the appeal) , review denied (Feb. 22, 2023), cert. denied , 2023 WL 6377900, (U.S. 2023) (mem) . The California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to dismiss the case without prejudice pending resolution of those appeals is moot. Gunaji v. Macias , 2001

- NMSC

- 028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (stating that our appellate courts do not decide moot issues).4 (stating that the interpretation of a foreign judgment is a question of law); see also 1
Pinghua Zhao v. Montoya , 2014

- NMSC

- 025, ¶ 11, 329 P.3d 676 (“Questions of 2
statutory and constitutional interpretation are reviewed de novo.”)

. 3

{ 6 } Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that “Full Faith 4
and Credit shall be given in each State to the . . . judicial Proceedings of every other 5

State.” In other words 6
the judgment of a [s]tate court which had jurisdiction of the parties and 7 the subject

- matter in suit, shall be given in the courts of every other 8 [s]tate the same credit, validity and effect which it has in the [s]tate 9 where it was rendered, and be equally conclusive upon the merits; and 10 that only such defenses as would be good to a suit thereon in that [s]tate 11 can be relied on in the courts of any other [s]tate. 12

Roche v. McDonald , 275 U.S. 449, 451

- 52 (1928) . New Mexico courts must give 13
the judgments of a sister state full faith and credit, “unless the judgment is void.” 14

Jordan v. Hall , 1993

- NMCA

- 061, ¶ 5, 115 N.M. 775, 858 P.2d 863 . New Mexico 15
courts determine the validity of foreign judgments based on the law of the foreign 16
jurisdiction. Rubin v. Rubin , 1995

- NMCA

- 107, ¶ 7, 120 N.M. 592, 904 P.2d 41 17
(collecting cases supporting this principle); see also Willis v. Willis , 1986

- NMSC

18
035, ¶ 6, 104 N.M. 233, 719 P.2d 811 (“To escape the rule that a judgment of a sister 19
state is entitled to full faith and credit . . . we would have to hold that the judgment 20
is void and entitled to no standing even in the state in which it was rendered.” 21
(alternations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). However, “a state may 22
apply its own procedural rules [to the domestication of foreign judgments], including 235 statutes of limitations, to actions litigated in its courts without running afoul of the 1

Full Faith and Credit Clause.” Schmierer v. Tribal Tr

. , 2018

- NMCA

- 058, ¶ 21, 427 2

P.3d 143

. 3

{ 7 } For New Mexico courts to “give full faith and credit to judgments of other 4
state courts,” the foreign judgment must be domesticated into a New Mexico 5
judgment. Walter E. Heller W

. , Inc. v. Ditto , 1998

- NMCA

- 068, ¶ ¶ 4

- 5, 125 N.M. 6
226, 959 P.2d 560 . This can be accomplished either by registering the foreign 7
judgment , pursuant to New Mexico’s Foreign Judgments Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 39

- 8

4A

- 1 to

- 6 (1989, as amended through 1994), or by bringing a common law action 9
to enforce the judgment

. Walter E. Heller W

. , Inc. , 1998

- NMCA

- 068, ¶ 4. Under the 10
Act, an authenticated foreign judgment may be filed with the clerk of the district 11

court and will have “the same effect and . . . may be enforced or satisfied in [ a ] like 12
manner” as an original New Mexico judgment. Section 39

- 4A

- 3 (A); see id. (stating 13

that “the clerk shall treat” a foreign judgment as a New Mexico judgment). This is 14
true even though the registry of the foreign judgment under the Act by the clerk is 15
mandatory and thus could be considered ministerial. Wallbro v. Nolte , 2022

- NMCA

16
027, ¶ 20, 511 P.3d 348 (explaining that a ministerial act is an act , which a public 17
official must perform under the law as opposed to an act dictated by the official’s 18
own discretion) , cert. granted ( S

- 1

- SC

- 38773, Apr. 19, 2022) . Similarly, 19
successfully bringing a common law action requires state courts to treat foreign 206 judgments equal to New Mexico judgments. Galef v. Buena Vista Dairy , 1994

- 1

NMCA

- 068, ¶¶ 4

- 5, 117 N.M. 701, 875 P.2d 1132 (stating that bringing a common 2
law action to domesticate a California judgment in New Mexico converted the 3

“ California judgment into a separate New Mexico judgment”). 4

{ 8 } Foreign judgments domesticated in California are also afforded the same force 5
and effect as original judgments in that state. California courts require a foreign 6
judgment to be domesticated before it is enforceable. Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & 7

Ins. Servs. , Inc. , 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788 , 792 ( Ct. App. 2013) . The same processes 8
allowed for domestication of a judgment in New Mexico, registration of the foreign 9
judgment with the clerk of the court or bringing an independent common law action, 10
are permitted in California. See i d. at 792

- 93 (stating that the legislative purpose of 11
enacting the SSMJ was to provide a more economical and expeditious option for 12
enforcing a foreign judgment than bringing an independent action); Casey v. Hill , 13
294 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298 , 320 ( Ct. App. 2022) (stating that before the SSMJ , a judgment 14
creditor “was required to file an original action” to domesticate a judgment, but the 15

Act created “a simpler and more efficient method of enforcing sister state 16
judgments” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted) ). 17

{ 9 } Although the registry of a foreign judgment under the SSMJ is ministerial, 18
Casey , 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 320 (stating that “entry by the clerk of a judgment based 19

up on the application is mandatory

. . . , constituting a ministerial act of the clerk”), 207 a registration of a sister state judgment has “the same force and effect as a judgment 1
originally issued by a California court ‘and may be enforced or satisfied in like 2

manner.’” Id. (quoting § 1710.35). In other words, under California law, 3
domesticated foreign judgments, whether via independent action or registration 4
under the Act, are treated as original California judgments. Washoe Dev. Co. v. 5

Guar. Fed. Bank , 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479 , 481 ( Ct. App. 1996) (explaining that both 6
sister state judgments domesticated by independent action or by registration have 7
“the same effect as an original California money judgment”). 8

{1 0 } Here, in order to determine whether the California judgment is entitled to full 9
faith and credit in New Mexico, we must first assess whether the California judgment 10
is valid under California law, see Rubin , 1995

- NMCA

- 107, ¶ 7, and then determine 11
whether New Mexico procedural rules prohibit domestication of the judgment, 12

Schmierer , 2018

- NMCA

- 058, ¶ 21. If New Mexico law would bar the action, then 13

we must determine if the F ull F aith and C redit C lause requires recognition of the 14
judgment nonetheless

. Id. Because , as we explain below, the California judgment is 15
valid and enforceable under New Mexico and California law and is not barred by 16
our statute of limitations, we conclude it must be given full faith and credit in New 17

Mexico. 18

{ 1 1} California law treats domesticated judgments the same as original judgments, 19
even if domestication was accomplished through a ministerial act such as 208 registration. Casey , 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 320 . New Mexico courts also treat 1
domesticated judgments as original judgments, even if they were domesticated 2
through a ministerial act

. Walter E. Heller W

. , Inc. , 1998

- NMCA

- 068, ¶ ¶ 4

- 5. As 3
such, foreign judgments registered in California are valid California judgments 4
under New Mexico and California law and New Mexico courts must give full faith 5
and credit to them so long as they meet the New Mexico procedural requirements. 6

See Schmierer , 2018

- NMCA

- 058, ¶ 21 (explaining that a state’s obligation to 7
provide full faith and credit to another state’s judgments can be limited by procedural 8
rules including statutes of limitations). Here, the California judgment is a valid and 9
enforceable judgment in California and thus a valid and enforceable judgment in 10

New Mexico. See Rubin , 1995

- NMCA

- 107, ¶ 7

. 11

{1 2 } We now turn to the question of whether New Mexico’s procedural limitations 12
to domesticating a valid foreign judgment prevent the domestication of the 13
California judgment. “In interpreting statutes , we seek to give effect to the 14
Legislature’s intent.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp. , 1996

- NMSC

- 038, ¶ 13, 121 15
N.M. 764, 918 P.2d 350. In doing so, we look first to the plain language of the statute 16

because the “ statute’s plain language is the most reliable indicator of legislative 17

intent.” Stennis v. City of Santa Fe , 2010

- NMCA

- 108, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 92, 244 P.3d 18

787. Moreover, we presume that “[t]he Legislature knows how to include language 19
in a statute if it so desires,” State v. Greenwood , 2012

- NMCA

- 017, ¶ 38, 271 P.3d 209 753 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) , and that a “ change from the 1
prior statutory language” indicates an intentional change. State ex rel. Child., Youth 2
& Fams. Dep ’ t v. T.J. , 1997

- NMCA

- 021, ¶ 5, 123 N.M. 99, 934 P.2d 293 ; see also 3

Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. N.M. Tax ’ n & Revenue Dep ’ t , 2020

- NMCA

- 011, ¶ 15, 4

456 P.3d 1085 (stating that a recent amendment in the language of the statute 5
elaborated on and helped clarify legislative intent)

. 6

{1 3 } At the time Plaintiff sought to domesticate the California judgment, foreign 7
judgments could be domesticated if they were “brought within the applicable period 8

of limitation within th at [foreign] jurisdiction, not to exceed fourteen years from the 9
date of the judgment.” NMSA 1978, § 37

- 1

- 2 (1983, amended 2021). There is no 10
word modifying judgment, and thus the plain language of the statute does not limit 11
the type of judgment to original judgments, but also is sufficiently broad to include 12
a renewal of a judgment such as this one. 13

{1 4 } In 2021, the Legislature amended the statute to include the word “original” 14
before the word “judgment.” Compare § 37

- 1

- 2 (1983), with § 37

- 1

- 2 (2021). As 15
such, the amendment changes the language of the statute so that the statute of 16
limitations for domesticating a foreign judgment runs “ from the date of the original 17
judgment upon which it is founded,” as opposed to the date of any judgment being 18

domesticated. Section 37

- 1

- 2. However, because the California judgment is treated 19
like an original judgment under California law, regardless of which version of the 2010 statute applies , the applicable time frame is ten years, well within the fourteen

- year 1
term provided by the statute. Moreover, the new statute does not apply to the current 2

case because it became effective after the case was filed. See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo , 3

2006

- NMCA

- 089, ¶ 11, 140 N.M. 129, 140 P.3d 550

. Therefore, New Mexico law 4
does not bar the domestication of the California registration judgment and New 5
Mexico courts must give it full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the 6

United States Constitution. 7

CONCLUSION 8

{1 5 } We reverse the district court’s determination that the California registration 9
judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico , and remand this 10

matter to the district court on Plaintiff’s claim for enforcement to be decided on the 11

merits. 12

{1 6 } IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

_____________________________ 14 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge 15

WE CONCUR: 16

____ ____ ______________ _

__________ _ 17 GERALD E. BACA , Judge 18

____ ____________________ _____ ___ ___ 19 MICHAEL D . BUSTAMANTE , Judge , 20 retired, S itting by designation 21