Opinion ID: 2586184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of the Juneau Judgment in Anchorage

Text: The Martins' main argument is that because their Juneau judgment was obtained first, before the Anchorage case was resolved, they had priority to the funds held by the court. The Martins argue that the Anchorage court was required to implement the Juneau judgment against the funds in Anchorage under a full faith and credit theory. The Martins claim that the Juneau court found the funds held by the court in Anchorage were earned by the Martins and that [the Juneau court] clearly expected [the Anchorage court] to respect this finding and release those funds, even without [the court] ordering it. But the Martins overstate the Juneau judgment. Although the Juneau court ruled that the Anchorage funds could be traced to the Martins' contract with Lewis, it expressly declined to decide on the disposition of those funds: The court finds that the amounts due to the Martins under the vessel charter in this case were earned by them in the contract resulting in the landings that paid the money that is now in the registry of the court in Anchorage. The amount owed is substantially overdue. The court makes no decision as to how the money in the registry of the court in Anchorage shall be distributed. (Emphasis added.) The Juneau court found that the Martins were owed money under the contract and that money from the contract was in the court registry in Anchorage. But this says nothing about the priority of the Martins' claim to the funds in light of other claims against them. Because of this, there was no relevant judgment to give full faith and credit to, and it is irrelevant that the Juneau judgment was issued first. [5] The Martins' argument that they should have priority to the funds as a matter of law based solely on the Juneau judgment is without merit.