1 Which, at that ti me, had not been registered [e nrolled] in Tennessee. 

# FILED

April 29, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

DEBBY W. CALKINS, ) SEVIER CHANCERY ) Plaintiff/Appell

ant ) NO. 03A01-9709-C H-00413 ) v. ) HON. CHESTER S. RAINWATER ) CHANCELLOR JAMES C. CALKINS, ) ) REVERSED a

nd Defendant/Appellee ) REMANDED Stephen K. Barr

ett, Knoxville, f

or Appellant. William A. Mynatt, Jr.,

Knoxville, for Appellee. O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senio

r Judge A final judgm

ent of divorce was entered in Louisian a in June 1993, which, inter alia, awarded the plaint iff custody of th

e children and $1,050 .00 monthly child

support. The plaintiff later moved t o Sevier County, Tennessee, wi th the children. The defendant moved to New Hampshire, where he attends college. In December

1996, the plaintiff filed a compla int to register the L

ouisiana judgment in the Chancery Court of Sevier County. The def endant by special appearance m

oved to dismiss because “Tennessee has no personal j urisdiction over the defendant t o enforce the judgment.” Before the mo

tion to dismiss wa

s acted upon, the def

endant filed a motion in the Sevi

er County Chanc

ery Court to m

odify the Louisia

na judgment. 1On April 17, 1997 the Louisiana judgment was enrolled in the Chancery

Court. The plaint

iff promptly

filed a motion f

or contempt and sought a judgment for child supp ort arrearages. The Chancellor denied the defendant’s motion to modify, and also denied the plaintiff’s m

otion for contem

pt and for a judgm

ent for the arrea

rage. The plaintiff appeals,

and presents for re

view the issue of w

hether the court er

red in failing to enforce th e Louisiana judgment. Where there is no c onflict in the evidence as to any ma

terial fact, the

question on appeal is one of law, and the scope of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness acc

ompanying a chancellor's conclu sions of law. Union Carbide Corp. v . Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn . 1993) . It is pertinent to note that the issue of

modification of the judgment is not befo re us, See, Roseman v. Roseman, 890 S.W.2d 27 (T enn. 1994), and the regis

tration of the Louis

iana judgment

in Tennessee is not questioned. As nea

rly as may

be gleaned from

the record, enfo

rcement of the judgment was denied because it was a “EURE SA” matter. The appellee conc

edes that URESA

[T.C.A. § 36- 5-201 et seq. ] has no present application to this case, but ar gues that “a UR

ESA action would have to be filed in order to enforce any judgment against the property or against Mr. Calkins in his home

state,” because

enforcement

of the judgmen

t by execution under the Uniform

Enforcemen

t of Foreign Judgm

ents Act, T.C. A. § 26-6-101 et seq., is dependent upon leviable property in Tennessee, and if not, a URESA action would b e neces sary. Perhaps so, but the argument begs the question, because the record contains no revelati

ons about all this. T

he defendant is befo

re the court; he is subject to in personam

jurisdiction by his own actions and admissions, whateveror wherever m ay be his State of residency, at least for the pur

poses of this action. A foreign judgm

ent, once enrolled, has the same effect and is subj ect to the same proce

dures, defenses,

and proceedings for

reopening, vacati

ng, or staying as a ju

dgment of a cour

t of record in Tenn

essee, and ma

y be enforced o

r satisfied in like m

anner. T.C.A . § 26-6-104(c). It is entitled to full faith and credit. Rasnic v. Wynn

, 625 S.W.2d 278 (Tenn. App. 1981). The Tennessee judicial system has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and he is therefore subject to the coer

cive authority of

its courts. Other

wise, enrollm

ent of the foreign judgm

ent was pointless. The judgment

is reversed and the

case is rema

nded for all purposes , with costs assessed to the appellee.

________________________________ William H.

Inman, Senio

r Judge CONCUR:

________________________________ Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

________________________________ Herschel P. Fr

anks, Judge