Opinion ID: 1889209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Collateral Attack Issue

Text: Defendants contend in this appeal that the judgment of the Mississippi chancery court is not entitled to full faith and credit in Alabama, because Defendants failed to receive notice of the setting of the Mississippi case for trial. As postured by Appellee, and we think rightly so, whether the Defendants did or did not receive notice of the trial setting is not the issue here. The issue is whether Defendants can collaterally attack the Mississippi judgment based upon their assertion that they did not receive notice of the trial setting. Because this case deals with whether an Alabama court is required to give full faith and credit to a Mississippi judgment, when it is being collaterally attacked, cases dealing with the Alabama appellate courts' review of Alabama trial courts' decisions in a direct appeal are inapplicable. For purposes of a summary judgment motion, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here, the Appellants). Papastefan v. B & L Construction Co., Inc., of Mobile, 356 So.2d 158, 160 (Ala. 1978). Accordingly, it must be assumed that Appellants did not receive notice of the Mississippi hearing on the Declaration for Damages. The failure of Defendants to receive notice of the hearing, however, is an irregularity that renders the Mississippi judgment voidable, not void. Combs v. Chambers, 302 F.Supp. 194, 200-201 (N.D.Okl. 1969); Gray v. Hall, 203 Cal. 306, 265 P. 246, 253 (1928). [1] In Combs, supra, plaintiff attempted to enforce in Oklahoma a default judgment obtained against a defendant in Arkansas. Defendant sought to collaterally attack the Arkansas judgment in Oklahoma on grounds that neither the Arkansas court nor the plaintiff had afforded him notice of the application for default. The federal district court, while unable to determine any Arkansas requirement that notice be given to defendant prior to entry of a default judgment, noted: If it may be assumed that Arkansas by statute or rule of court required notice before a default judgment can be taken and a default judgment is taken without such notice, such action does not constitute a lack of jurisdiction in the meaning of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States. It is at most an irregularity, the judgment is not void and should be entered in a sister state. 302 F.Supp. at 200. See, also, Mueller v. Payn, 30 Md.App. 377, 352 A.2d 895, 901 (Ct.Spec.App.1976). (A violation of a procedural rule would not require a court to deny full faith and credit to a foreign judgment.) Defendants do not contest the Mississippi court's personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Once a court obtains jurisdiction, irregularities only render a judgment erroneous or voidable. Gray, 203 Cal. at 315, 265 P. at 251. A judgment is never absolutely void if the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the defendant no matter how erroneous it may be. Gray, 203 Cal. at 314, 265 P. at 251. Failure to give notice is not jurisdictional under the full faith and credit clause. Combs, 302 F.Supp. at 201. Once jurisdiction has been acquired, errors of judgment or irregularities which do not render the judgment void are not available on collateral attack. Cobbs v. Norville, 227 Ala. 621, 623, 151 So. 576, 577 (1933); see Gray, supra, 203 Cal. at 313, 265 P. at 251. In Gray, the court distinguished those cases in which a defendant receives no notice of an action from those in which the defendant received notice of the lawsuit but not of subsequent proceedings. In the first instance, any judgment rendered would be void because of the absence of jurisdiction of the court to render the judgment. Gray, 203 Cal. at 316, 265 P. at 252. In the second instance, however, the lack of notice would only render the judgment voidable: The notice essential to due course and process of law is the original notice whereby the court acquires jurisdiction, and is not notice of the time when jurisdiction, already completely vested, will be exercised. 203 Cal. at 318, 265 P. at 253. The only remedy available to a defendant subject to a voidable judgment is a direct appeal from that judgment; a collateral attack is not allowed. Gray, 203 Cal. at 317, 265 P. at 252; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 198 So.2d 32, 33 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967). Consequently, Defendants' remedy would have been to attempt to have the Mississippi judgment set aside in a Mississippi court.