Opinion ID: 1902359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Full Faith and Credit Delaware Judgment in Maryland Courts

Text: The State of Maryland has suggested to this Court that it may not recognize the validity of any monetary judgment entered against it or Knapp by the courts of Delaware. It will argue that such a Delaware judgment should not be enforced by any court in the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland's suggested challenge to the validity of the monetary judgments that will be entered by the Delaware Superior Court, upon remand from this Court, raises the specter of adverse implications regarding the effective administration of justice. Accordingly, we have examined the history, purpose, and interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [71] The issue of one state affording full faith and credit to the judgment of another state was considered during the nascency of our Nation. On November 10, 1777, the Continental Congress appointed a committee to consider sundry provisions that had been proposed for the Articles of Confederation, including a full faith and credit clause. [72] When the Articles of Confederation were enacted, there was a basic requirement for full faith credit, but, a specific provision that an action of debt may lie in the court of any state to recover on the judgment of another was rejected. [73] The Articles of Confederation proved to be an unsuccessful form of government because each state remained substantially sovereign and often exercised those sovereign powers in a manner that adversely affected the commercial interests of other states including, but not limited to, interstate debt collections. [74] Given the position suggested by the State of Maryland in this appeal, it is somewhat ironic historically that John Dickinson of Delaware was elected to preside at the Annapolis Convention in Maryland, which was called in 1786 to address the practices between states that were opposed to the great principles and Spirit of the Union. [75] Upon the recommendation of the Annapolis Convention, Congress passed a resolution calling upon all of the states to send delegates to Philadelphia for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. [76] After the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, the Framers adopted a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government. [77] What emerged from the Philadelphia Convention was a plan for a new federation, based upon a strong central government, i.e., the United States Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause that ultimately appeared in the United States Constitution was described in The Federalist as an evident and valuable improvement on the clause relating to this subject in the Articles of Confederation and may be rendered a very convenient instrument of justice, and be particularly beneficial on the borders of contiguous states e.g., Delaware and Maryland. [78] The United States Supreme Court has characterized [t]he Full Faith and Credit Clause [as] one of the provisions incorporated into the Constitution by its framers for the purpose of transforming an aggregation of independent, sovereign States into a nation. [79] The Full Faith and Credit Clause was first construed by the United States Supreme Court in 1813. [80] In another historic coincidence, we note that the attorney challenging a broad reading of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in that case was Francis Scott Key, who wrote our national Anthem the following year from a ship in the Baltimore, Maryland harbor. [81] Key contended that merely to receive in evidence a judgment from another state to be weighed with other evidence gave it all the faith and credit required. [82] In responding to that argument, the opinion, authored by Justice Joseph Story, stated that the interpretation which had been advocated by Francis Scott Key would render the Full Faith and Credit Clause utterly unimportant and illusory. [83] The United States Supreme Court then held that a judgment which was conclusive in the state where it was rendered must be received as conclusive by every other state. [84] Ever since that initial construction of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in 1813, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting, when applied to state judgments: A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land. For claim and issue preclusion (res judicata) purposes, in other words, the judgment of the rendering State gains nationwide force. [85] In 1998, the United States Supreme Court responded directly to the argument that there was a ubiquitous `public policy exception' permitting one State to resist recognition of another State's judgment. [86] That argument was described as a misreading of our precedent because our decisions support no roving `public policy exception' to the full faith and credit due judgments. [87] The United States Supreme Court concluded that it was aware of [no] considerations of local policy or law which could rightly be deemed to impair the force and effect which the full faith and credit clause and the Act of Congress require to be given to [a money] judgment outside the state of its rendition. [88] The United States Supreme Court has concluded that the express purpose behind the Full Faith and Credit Clause was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin. [89] The highest court in the State of Maryland has consistently demonstrated its proper understanding of the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, with regard to the enforcement of judgments from another state: If the judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution precludes any inquiry into the merits of the cause of action, the logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles involved, and the judgment is conclusive as to all questions in controversy and all defenses which might have been interposed with proper diligence. [90] As the United States Supreme Court noted once again this year, the Full Faith and Credit Clause ordered submission ... even to hostile policies reflected in the judgment of another State, because the practical operation of the federal system, which the Constitution designed, demanded it. [91] The State of Maryland's suggestion that the judgments which will be entered against it and Knapp by the Delaware Superior Court are unenforceable in the courts of Maryland, appears to be completely contrary to the history, purpose, and well-established interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, including the most recent pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court in Baker earlier this year. [92]