Full Faith And Credit To Judgments Outline

Full Faith and Credit to Judgments

1. In General

   1. Article IV, § 1

      1. "The Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." (pg. 476)

   2. 28 U.S.C. § 1738

      1. "The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any . . . State, Territory or Possession [of the United States] . . . , or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken." (pg. 476)

   3. Other Principles

      1. (1) Recognition of a judgment is different than enforcement of a judgment.

         • A state can recognize a judgment without enforcing it

      2. (2) Recognition of a judgment does not necessarily lead to the same effect of a judgment in State B as in State A

      3. (3) Execution (Process)

         • Only State A

           • (1) Get a judgment

           • (2) Go to clerk and get a writ of execution

           • (3) Go to marshall, give writ, get property, and turn to cash to satisfy judgment

         • Multi-State

           • (1) Get judgment is State A

           • (2) "Domesticate" is State B via new lawsuit in State B

           • (3) Go to clerk and get a writ of execution

           • (4) Go to marshall, give writ, get property, and turn to cash to satisfy judgment

2. Final Decrees of Sister States

   1. Fauntleroy v. Lum (pg. 477)

      1. "[T]he judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the State where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such State, and none others, could be pleaded in any other court in the United States." (pg. 479)

      2. "A judgment is conclusive as to all media concludendi, . . . and it need no authority to show that it cannot be impeached either in or out of the State by showing that it was based upon a mistake of law. Of course a want of jurisdiction over either the person or the subject-matter might be shown." (pp. 479-80)

         • "[A] judgment is entitled to full faith and credit - even as to questions of jurisdiction - when the second court's inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court in which rendered the original judgment." Durfee v. Duke (pg. 504)

   2. Second Restatement § 103 cmt. b:

      1. "There will be extremely rare occasions . . . when recognition of a sister State judgment would require too large a sacrifice by a State of its interest in a matter with which it is primarily concerned. On these extremely rare occasions, the policy embodied in full faith and credit will give way before the national policy that requires protection of the dignity and of the fundamental interests of each individual State. So, full faith and credit does not require a State to recognize a sister State injunction against suit in its courts on the ground that it is an inconvenient forum. . . . Likewise, it may be that full faith and credit is not owed a sister State custody decree on the ground that a court should be free to disregard such a decree when this is required by the best interests of the child." (pg. 487)

   3. Yarborough v. Yarborough (pg. 481)

      1. "[T]he full faith and credit clause applies to an unalterable decree of alimony for a divorce wife." (pg. 483)

      2. "The clause applies, likewise to an unalterable decree of alimony for a minor child." (pg. 483)

   4. Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (pg. 493)

      1. "[A] State has no legitimate interest within the context of our federal system in preventing another State from granting a supplemental compensation award when that second State would have the power to apply its workmen's compensation law in the first instance. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should not be construed to preclude successive workmen's compensation awards." (pg. 499)

         • This seems to be a limited exception to full faith and credit to judgments, based upon the interest or public policy of the state in which the judgment is sought to be enforced. BUT the exception, if this indeed is an exception, is limited to worker compensation awards.

      2. NOTWITHSTANDING Thomas, administrative awards and orders today are treated the same as judgments if the agency is empowered to adjudicate, its procedures comply with the essential elements of adjudication, and its actions are conclusive where made. See Restatement (Second) Judgments § 83(i) (pg. 502)

   5. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd (pg. 502)

      1. Neither full faith and credit nor a judicially-fashioned rule of preclusion required that preclusive effect be given to unappealed arbitration proceedings, because an arbitration without court review was not a judicial proceeding.

   6. The case law suggests that Court 2 could give a judgment greater effect than Court 1. See Hart v. American Airlines, Inc. (pg. 488)

   7. Personal Jurisdiction

      1. Remember, if you make a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction, then the issue will have been fully and fairly litigated such that the judgment must be afforded full faith and credit in another court.

         • HOWEVER, if you make no appearance at all, then you can collaterally attack the judgment for want of personal jurisdiction.

   8. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

      1. Obviously, if you have fully litigated the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, then there judgment cannot be collaterally attacked. See Durfee v. Duke

      2. What happens if it was not actually litigated?

         • Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank (pg. 508) held that explicit litigation of the jurisdictional issue is unnecessary. The judgment in that case was held to have preclusive effect notwithstanding the fact that the issue had not been raised or litigated in the first case.

         • In Sherrer v. Sherrer (pg. 508), subject-matter jurisdiction was held foreclosed even though the defendant's...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Outlines.