Opinion ID: 2150454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impeachment of Minnesota judgment.

Text: The defect alleged in the judgment here involved is that of jurisdiction. This is obviously a legitimate matter of inquiry whenever the enforcement of a foreign judgment is sought. [1] Indeed, this court has stated that this is the first matter to be inquired into. [2] It is well settled that without proper service of process no full faith and credit need be accorded a foreign judgment; in fact, the requirements of due process militate against according such, [3] and the judgment may then be collaterally attacked. [4] Of course, if the jurisdictional issue is fully litigated in the foreign court and is not subject to collateral attack in that state, then the forum court is bound by the judgment rendered as to jurisdiction as well. [5] These general propositions apply to actions in rem and quasi in rem as well as personal judgments, provided due process has been complied with. [6] There is no reason apparent here why this court may not inquire into jurisdiction in the instant case. If mere recital of jurisdiction or jurisdictional facts is not sufficient to bar such inquiry, it is entirely proper to make such inquiry. Respondent seeks to enforce the judgment of September 26, 1961, which apparently determined the personal liability of appellant, not the quasi in rem judgment of December 2, 1959. There is no evidence that appellant ever received notice of any proceedings after the former judgment was entered; this violates due process requirements. Respondent recited in his complaint in the Wisconsin trial court that due process was complied with in the proceedings commenced in August, 1959. But in his affidavit supporting his motion for summary judgment, respondent does not state that appellant received any notice of the proceedings subsequent to the judgment of December 2, 1959. Hence, it appears that the Minnesota judgment of September 26, 1961, was not entered after providing appellant with due process and that respondent did not make out a prima facie case warranting summary judgment. [7] Respondent contends, however, that the Minnesota court acquired in personam jurisdiction over the appellant when she appeared specially to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in the quasi in rem action of 1959. This brings us to the second issue.