Court Opinion

ID: 9614448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:25:34.008675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:02.482071
License: Public Domain

GOOLSBY, J.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgment below, principally because the trial judge placed the burden of proof upon the wrong party. The judgment debtors bore that burden in this instance, not the judgment creditor, and the judgment debtors failed to carry that burden.
The appellant Law Firm of Paul L. Erickson, P.A., filed with the clerk of court of Horry County pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(A) (2005)4 a properly authenticated copy of a North Carolina judgment it obtained against the respondents James R. Boykin and Mona S. Boykin, two South Carolina residents; on August 19, 2003, in Buncombe County, North Carolina. An affidavit, which the firm’s president executed and which indicated, among other things, the judgment was uncontested and wholly unsatisfied, accompanied the *216copy of the judgment.5 The Law Firm thereafter served the notice required by S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-930(A) (2005) upon the Boykins.
As allowed by S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(A) (2005),6 the Boykins filed a “Motion for Relief from Enforcement of Foreign Judgment,” contesting the North Carolina judgment on the ground “that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over the [Boykins].” The Law Firm did not move, as it could have done, “for enforcement or security of the foreign judgment as a judgment of this State.” 7
Following a hearing8 upon the Boykins’ motion,9 the trial court granted the Boykins’ “motion for relief’ after finding *217“no evidence offered ... suggested] that the [Boykins] ever established any contact with North Carolina ... sufficient to rise to the level of the ‘minimum contacts’ required.” The Boykins, however, offered no evidence at all at the hearing either by testimony or by affidavit regarding the issue of personal jurisdiction, notwithstanding the file containing a copy of the foreign judgment, which appears regular on its face, had been produced to the trial court.10 Neither did the Boykins point to anything in the record that supported their contention. What they did offer was argument of counsel, which, of course, is not “evidence.”11
The rule that “[a] judgment pronounced by a court of record of general jurisdiction, regular on its face, carries with it a presumption of validity”12 is so elementary that citation to the rule ought not to be necessary. Consistent with this rule is the one that “[a] party seeking to enforce a judgment usually is aided by certain presumptions as to matters such as jurisdiction, and ordinarily establishes his or her case by producing the judgment.”13 Moreover, “a party who controverts the validity of a judgment generally bears the burden of showing *218such invalidity by proper evidence.” 14 With respect to foreign judgments in particular, such a judgment is presumed to be valid where “rendered by a court of general jurisdiction”;15 and the party attacking the foreign judgment bears the burden of proving “it should not be given full faith and credit.”16
In South Carolina, “[a] judgment creditor may move for enforcement ... of the judgment as a judgment of this State”17 where the judgment debtor, as here, has filed a motion to be relieved from a foreign judgment. If the judgment creditor — here, the Law Firm — does so move, our statute plainly mandates the motion for enforcement be “heard before a judge who has jurisdiction of the matter,” prescribes the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are to apply, and places upon the judgment creditor “the burden of proving that the foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit.”18
Our state’s version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act does not alter in any way material in this instance the general rule regarding who has the burden of proof. This is because the judgment creditor here has not yet moved to enforce its foreign judgment against the judgment debtors, the Boykins.
As we read the record, all that occurred here was that (a) the Law Firm filed with the appropriate South Carolina clerk of court pursuant to sec. 15-35-920(A) a copy of an authenticated copy of its foreign judgment along with a supporting affidavit; (b) the Law Firm served a notice of the filing pursuant to sec. 15-35-930(A) upon the Boykins; (c) the Boykins filed a motion for relief from the foreign judgment pursuant to sec. 15-35-940(A);19 and (d) the Boykins at the *219hearing on their motion failed to rebut the presumption that the Law Firm’s North Carolina judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. The presumption arose when the Law Firm filed with the clerk of court and served on the Boykins a “filed, stamped copy”20 of a foreign judgment that was properly authenticated pursuant to Rule 44(a)(2), SCRCP,21 a copy of which was included in the file at the hearing and was before the trial court. Under these circumstances, the trial court •should not have granted the Boykins the relief that they sought because they, not the Law Firm, had the burden of proof and they offered no evidence and pointed to nothing in the record, as it existed at the time of the hearing, that supported their position that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Law Firm’s judgment, *220which appears regular on its face, was entitled, therefore, to full faith and credit.22
I would reverse.

. The cited code section is included within an article entitled "the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.” S.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-35-900 to-960 (2005).

. The filing of a foreign judgment and affidavit allows the foreign judgment to be docketed and indexed. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(B) (2005). Once a foreign judgment is filed pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(A), it "has the same effect and is subject to the same defenses as a judgment of this State and must be enforced or satisfied in like manner.” S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-920(C) (2005); see 50 C.J.S. Judgment § 985, at 593 (1997) (“[A] foreign judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction may be registered in a court of the forum state for the purposes of enforcement.”).

. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(A) (2005) provides in relevant part:
The. judgment debtor may file a motion for relief from ... the foreign judgment ... on any ground for which relief from a judgment of dtis State is allowed.

. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(B). The cited section reads:
If the judgment debtor has filed a motion for relief or notice of defenses, then the judgment creditor may move for enforcement or security of the foreign judgment as a judgment of this State, if all appeals of the foreign judgment are finally concluded and the judgment is not further contested. The judgment creditor’s motion must be heard before a judge who has jurisdiction of the matter based upon the amount in controversy as the amount remaining unpaid on the foreign judgment. The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The judgment creditor has the burden of proving that the foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit.
The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act does not affect a "judgment creditor's right to bring a civil action in this State to enforce the creditor's judgment.” S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-950 (2005). See 50 C.J.S. Judgment § 1042, at 650 (1997) ("Courts recognize at least two proceedings for the enforcement of foreign judgments: filing under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act ... or filing a common law action.”).

. The trial judge recognized the Boykins as the moving party at the hearing when he addressed the Boykins’ counsel. "Give me,” he said, *217“a little factual history, moving party, what you’re seeking, then I'll hear counsel tell me why he thinks you ought not to get that remedy.” Whereupon, as the record shows, counsel for the Boykins explained the background of the case. In doing so, counsel for the Boykins admitted her clients “received a default judgment which [the Law Firm] has since registered in Horry County and [the Boykins had] moved for relief from the enforcement of the judgment based on the lack of personal jurisdiction.”

. The first sentence of the trial court's order recites that "THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COURT pursuant to a motion filed by [the Boykins] seeking relief from the enforcement of a final [j]udgment issued in the Buncombe County, North Carolina Superior Court on August 19, 2003. (Bolding in original)”

. See infra note 16.

. See Gilmore v. Ivey, 290 S.C. 53, 58, 348 S.E.2d 180, 183 (1986) (holding factual statements of counsel, whether made during oral argument or in written briefs, ordinarily cannot be considered in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists).

. 47 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 800, at 378-79 (2006).

. Id. § 799, at 378.

. id.

. Id. § 801, at 379.

. Id. § 803, at 381.

. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(B) (2005).

. Id.

. I entertain no doubt that the authenticated copy of the judgment and related documents were of record and before the trial court at the hearing. The trial judge states at one point, “I'm going to read this file *219for a moment." Counsel for the Boykins apparently knew the contents of the file. The only item counsel claimed that was not part of the file was the contract the Law Firm sought to introduce at the hearing. Counsel states, when voicing her objection to the introduction of the contract, “It’s not part of the file. It wasn't filed with the judgment.”

. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-930(A) (2005).

. See Coskery v. Wood, 52 S.C. 516, 519, 30 S.E. 475, 476 (1898) ("When ... an action is brought in this State upon a judgment recovered in another State ... and the same is properly authenticated in the manner prescribed by the act of Congress for that purpose, it must be regarded, at least, ]as prima facie evidence that such judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, in conformity to the laws of the state in which it appears to have been rendered.”); Sec. Credit Leasing, Inc. v. Armaly, 339 S.C. 533, 540-41, 529 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct.App.2000) (“[The judgment debtor], by challenging the enforcement of the foreign judgment on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, assumed the burden of proof.”); see also Lust v. Fountain of Life, Inc., 110 N.C.App. 298, 429 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1993) ("The introduction into evidence of a copy of the foreign judgment, authenticated pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, establishes a presumption that the judgment is entitled to full faith and credit.”).
To the extent that our case Jay Group v. Bootery of Haywood Mall, 335 S.C. 114, 515 S.E.2d 542 (Ct.App.1999), is in conflict with this opinion, I would overrule it. That case appears to hold that the judgment creditor has the burden of proof in all cases in which the judgment debtor attacks the validity of a foreign judgment. As explained above, this conclusion is erroneous. Only where the judgment debtor moves for relief from a foreign judgment and the judgment creditor "then” moves for enforcement does the judgment creditor have the burden of proving the foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-35-940(B) (2005).

. Taylor v. Taylor, 229 S.C. 92, 97, 91 S.E.2d 876, 879 (1956).