Opinion ID: 1833487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the doctrine of res judicata precludes shelnut from attacking the jurisdiction of the canadian court.

Text: ¶ 8. Generally, the enforcement of judgment entered in a foreign nation is governed by state law and the principle of comity. Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1987). The application of the principle of comity is a matter of discretion with the trial judge. Id. (citing Kountouris v. Varvaris, 476 So.2d 599, 607 (Miss.1985); Cox v. Cox, 234 Miss. 885, 892, 108 So.2d 422 (1959)). However, in the area at issue in this casechild supportour Legislature has seen fit to adopt statutory law controlling the recognition of foreign judgments. ¶ 9. The UIFSA, as enacted in Mississippi, provides a procedure whereby child support orders from foreign states and countries may be enforced in this Mississippi. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-1 et seq. (Supp.1999). Jurisdictions outside the United States fall within the purview of the UIFSA. By definition, a state includes foreign jurisdictions which have enacted laws or established procedures for issuing and enforcing support orders similar to the UIFSA. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-3(s)(ii) (Supp.1999). The proper procedure to be followed by a foreign jurisdiction seeking enforcement of a child support order is to send a request for registration with the order to the appropriate tribunal in Mississippi. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-83 (Supp.1999). A registered order is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-85(2) (Supp.1999). Canada is a participant in this scheme of enforcement. See Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, 1996. ¶ 10. Whether we are examining enforcement of the judgment under statutory law or principles of comity, the ability of a court to give effect to a foreign judgment necessarily depends upon the judgment being valid in the first place. Because the duty to pay child support is a personal obligation, a valid judgment imposing child support in favor of a plaintiff may be entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Hamm v. Hall, 693 So.2d 906, 909 (Miss.1997) (citing Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978)). Thus, the question of whether the Canadian court had personal jurisdiction over Shelnut is crucial to the chancery court's ability to enforce the judgment. Shelnut successfully argued before the chancery court that because the Canadian court lacked jurisdiction over his person, the judgment for child support is void and unenforceable under the UIFSA. ¶ 11. The chancellor's determination to forego application of the doctrine of res judicata is a legal rather than a factual determination. For questions of law de novo, our standard of review is de novo. Saliba v. Saliba, 753 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Miss.2000) (citing Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, 557 So.2d 780, 784 (Miss.1990)). DHS contends that the chancellor erred in refusing to apply the principles of res judicata to the issue of whether the Canadian court had personal jurisdiction over Shelnut. DHS points to two prior adjudications of this issue which, DHS contends, preclude Shelnut's collateral attack on the validity of the foreign judgment.
¶ 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.
¶ 21. Additionally, DHS argues that 1991 order of dismissal entered by the Hinds County Chancery Court should also bar litigation of the jurisdictional issue. The order is somewhat ambiguous as to exactly which action it is dismissing and on what grounds. DHS argues that the order is a conclusive determination by the chancery court that the Canadian court had jurisdiction over the parties regarding Kern's requests for a divorce, for child support, and for child custody. Shelnut contends that the order is a conclusive determination by the chancery court that the Canadian court had jurisdiction over the parties regarding only Kern's request for a divorce. ¶ 22. Prior to the Canadian court's determination of the petition filed by Kern, Shelnut filed two actions in the Hinds County Chancery Court. The first, a petition for child custody and support, was assigned to Chancellor Denise Sweet Owens as case number 138,362. The second, a petition for divorce, was assigned to Chancellor Robinson as case number 141, 954. Kern challenged the jurisdiction of the chancery court in the custody action. On April 2, 1990, Chancellor Sweet denied Kern's motion to dismiss, finding that the chancery court had concurrent jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter with the Canadian court. On September 20, 1990, the two actions before the chancery court were consolidated by agreement of the parties, and the child custody and support action was assigned to Chancellor Robinson along with the divorce action. On July 5, 1990, the Canadian court entered its order adjudicating the issues of child custody and child support and declaring the parties divorced. On January 8, 1991, Chancellor Robinson entered an Order of Dismissal, which stated as follows: This cause came on to be heard on the motion of the Defendant, Gaye-Lynn Kern Shelnut, to dismiss the Complaint for Divorce as filed by the Plaintiff, Edward E. Shelnut, and the Court having considered the motion to dismiss of Gaye-Lynn Kern Shelnut and having taken into consideration that a divorce has been entered between these parties in the Province of Saskatchewan, Country of Canada, and further finding that the marital relationship and finding that the Canadian court had jurisdiction in that cause found that the divorce existing between these parties in Canada was a valid divorce and further found that no purpose could be served by pursuing a divorce in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The Court therefore finds that the Complaint for Divorce should be dismissed as moot. (emphasis added). The only case number on the chancery court's order is 141,954, the number of the divorce action. ¶ 23. Shelnut successfully argued before Chancellor Robinson that the above order issued by him referred only to the divorce action and not to the action for child custody or support. Shelnut's attorney submitted to the court a letter written by him to his client after the order was issued explaining the contents of an unrecorded conversation which had taken place in chambers prior to the issuance of the 1991 order. The letter states: Judge Robinson then stated that the sequence of process notwithstanding, he felt that the issue of obtaining a divorce had already been settled in Canada. He said that as far as he was concerned, the parties were divorced. I pointed out that there was much more at issue than the simple marital status of the partieswhether they were now single or still married. I explained that there were issues of child custody, visitation and support payments.... Judge Robinson ... stated that unless Gaye-Lynn came to Mississippi and subjected herself to the jurisdiction of his Court, he would not enter any Orders enforcing the Canadian decree for child support. He also commented that unless you went to Canada and submitted to its jurisdiction, any Order here would be as a practical matter unenforceable in Canada against Gaye-Lynn. Subsequent to the hearing regarding the enforceability of the Canadian judgment, Chancellor Robinson found that the 1991 order of dismissal was not dispositive on the issue of the personal jurisdiction of the Canadian court, but that the order was merely intended to acknowledge that the Canadian court had dissolved the marriage of the parties in the nature of an in rem action. ¶ 24. The face of the 1991 order of dismissal, referred only to the divorce action between the parties. The letter produced by Shelnut's attorney recounting the conversation in chambers as well as the chancellor's subsequent interpretation of his own order support this conclusion. Furthermore, though Shelnut's divorce action and child custody and support action had been consolidated, the order refers only to the divorce action, and the case number found on the order is only that of the divorce action. ¶ 25. It is the conclusion of this Court that the order does not constitute an adjudication of the personal jurisdiction of the Canadian court with regard to its ability to determine the issue of child support. Thus, the 1991 order of dismissal, in and of itself, did not preclude Shelnut's litigating the jurisdictional issue before the chancery court. ¶ 26. However, as discussed above, the Canadian court's judgment does preclude re-litigation of the jurisdictional issue.