Opinion ID: 1833487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Canadian Judgment

Text: ¶ 12. Shelnut filed an affidavit and responsive pleading in the Canadian court in which he raised, among other defenses, the issue of personal jurisdiction. DHS first argues that the Canadian court's decision on jurisdiction is binding and bars Shelnut's collateral attack. ¶ 13. The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction as well as to other issues whether the questions relate to jurisdiction of the subject matter or jurisdiction of the parties. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Where the jurisdiction of the court is challenged, and the question is contested and decided, a judgment of the court, unless reversed or set aside, that jurisdiction duly attached is conclusive on the parties in subsequent litigation. State ex rel. Patten v. Gaither, 179 Miss. 64, 171 So. 768 (1937). ¶ 14. When a person receives a complaint and summons from a court in another jurisdiction, whether the jurisdiction be another state, another federal court, or another country, and believes he is not subject to that court's jurisdiction, he has several alternatives available to him. [1] First, he may ignore the complaint and summons, and, then, if a default judgment is issued against him, he may challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding when the plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 706, 102 S.Ct. at 2106 (citing Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931)). Second, he may voluntarily waive any lack of personal jurisdiction and submit to the distant court's jurisdiction. And third, he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of challenging jurisdiction. Id. (citing American Sur. Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 166, 53 S.Ct. 98, 101, 77 L.Ed. 231 (1932)). The Supreme Court has explained that by taking this third route, as Shelnut has done here, the defendant agrees to abide by that court's determination on the issue of jurisdiction: That decision will be res judicata on that issue in any further proceedings. Id. ¶ 15. DHS relies upon the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alaska in Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1999). In that case, an Oregon court entered a child support order. The husband, a resident of Alaska, had participated through counsel in the Oregon proceedings and had unsuccessfully raised the issues of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The husband began to prosecute appeal in Oregon, but later abandoned it. When the wife attempted to enforce the Oregon order in Alaska, the husband attempted to collaterally attack the Oregon order, maintaining that it was not entitled to full faith and credit because the Oregon court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating: Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest; and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties. We see no reason why this doctrine should not apply in every case where one voluntarily appears, presents his case and is fully heard, and why he should not, in the absence of fraud, be thereafter concluded by the judgment of the tribunal to which he has submitted his cause. Id. at 741 (quoting Baldwin, 283 U.S. at 525-26, 51 S.Ct. 517). The court went on to note that although the discussion in Baldwin involved federal res judicata law, the Supreme Court later declared that this rule also applies to foreign judgments being enforced under full faith and credit. Id. (citing Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 350, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 96 cmt. b (1971) (reasoning that where the defendant chooses to litigate personal jurisdiction in the forum, rather than default, he gives the court jurisdiction to decide the issue)). The court explained that because the husband chose to litigate the issue in the Oregon court, the judgment was entitled to full faith and credit, even if the judgment was based on legal error. Id. at 741. The court explained that the remedy for legal error is appeal, not collateral attack. Id. ¶ 16. Though the rule in Wall and Sherrer was applied to judgments of foreign states being enforced under full faith and credit, the rule is equally applicable to the judgments of foreign nations being enforced in this state under the principle of comity, as discussed by this Court in Laskosky, 504 So.2d at 729-30. In Laskosky, this Court examined the jurisdiction of a Canadian court to render a child custody decree under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-23-5 (Supp.1999). The wife in Laskosky made jurisdictional arguments, asking this Court to ignore the Canadian decree. This Court held that the wife had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Canadian court and that jurisdiction, once acquired, could not be later defeated. Id. at 730. ¶ 17. Shelnut argues that by filing a responsive pleading which contained the jurisdictional defense, he somehow preserved the issue of personal jurisdiction for collateral attack. For this proposition he cites O'Neill v. O'Neill, 515 So.2d 1208 (Miss.1987). The chancellor also relied upon O'Neill in finding that Shelnut had preserved his objection to the jurisdiction of the Canadian court. O'Neill involved a judgment of divorce entered against a nonresident husband by the Harrison County Chancery Court. The husband appealed the chancellor's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. This Court reversed the chancery court's decision that the husband waived his jurisdictional objections by making a general appearance. The Court noted that the husband's motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction prevented waiver of the husband's defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 1212. The Court concluded that the chancery court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. ¶ 18. O'Neill is inapplicable to the facts at hand. In O'Neill, by making a special appearance to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction, the husband preserved the jurisdictional issue for purposes of direct appeal. He did not preserve it for collateral attack. See also Lambert v. Lawson, 538 So.2d 767 (Miss.1989). The same is true of Shelnut. Shelnut made no attempt to appeal the judgment of the Canadian court, and he should not now be permitted to collaterally attack it. ¶ 19. Shelnut also argues that because the judgment of the Canadian court contains no express finding on the issue of jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction was never decided and that he should therefore be allowed to collaterally attack the question of jurisdiction. The Shelnut argument is misplaced. This Court has held that a federal court, by merely assuming jurisdiction and adjudicating a case, necessarily determines it has jurisdiction thereof, and the correctness of such a determination cannot be collaterally attacked in a subsequent suit in state court. Alliance Trust Co. v. Armstrong, 185 Miss. 148, 186 So. 633 (1939). In Alliance Trust, this Court explained that upon allegations that a forum court is without jurisdiction, the court is charged with the duty of determining its jurisdiction. Id. at 634. The Court stated, This it necessarily did by assuming jurisdiction and adjudicating the case. Whether it decided that question correctly or not would be of interest on an appeal from its judgment, but cannot be inquired into here. Id. at 635 (citing Baldwin, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S.Ct. 517; Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104 (1938)). ¶ 20. Though the case at hand involves a foreign, not federal, court, the same rationale should be applied. A judgment is presumed to have resolved all issues in favor of the validity of the judgment. Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 514 (Miss.1990). The question of jurisdiction was within the scope of the issues conclusively determined by the Canadian court. It was a threshold question, necessary to the court's decision on the merits. Shelnut had a meaningful opportunity to be heard in response to Kern's petition before the Canadian court. He admits that he was represented by Canadian counsel. He filed two pleadings contesting jurisdiction. From his responsive pleading, it is evident that Shelnut contested the jurisdiction of the Canadian court over his person for purposes of the determination of issue of maintenance. The interim order of the Canadian court ordering Shelnut to pay child support recites that the court entered its order based upon having heard counsel on behalf of both the Petitioner and the Respondent. There is no requirement that for res judicata to bar this collateral attack, the Canadian court must list the evidence upon which it found jurisdiction over Shelnut or that the Canadian court hold a full evidentiary hearing on the issue. Shelnut submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Canadian court for the purposes of contesting jurisdiction. The Canadian court, of necessity, ruled against him on the issue. Shelnut made no attempt to appeal the judgment of the Canadian court, waiting instead ten years for Kern to attempt to enforce the support decree in Mississippi before collaterally attacking the judgment. Shelnut testified at the hearing before the chancery court that he did not appeal the Canadian judgment because his lawyer advised him that it would cost more money and Shelnut would almost assuredly be ruled against. Shelnut's assertion that the Canadian judgment should not be enforced for want of jurisdiction is rejected. The chancellor erred as a matter of law in allowing Shelnut to relitigate the issue before the lower court.