Summary
recognizing that General Statutes § 52-607 preserves the common law right to proceed on a foreign judgment unimpaired by the provisions of the Foreign Judgment Act
Summary of this case from Yazoo Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. EllisOpinion
FILE No. 1204
From the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff on a New York judgment, the defendant appealed claiming that because the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act ( 52-604 through 52-609) does not apply to foreign judgments obtained, as here, by a confession of judgment, the plaintiff was barred from enforcing the New York judgment. Held that since here the plaintiff did not proceed under 52-605 to enforce the New York judgment itself, but chose, instead, to exercise the common-law right of a judgment creditor, as preserved by 52-607, to bring an independent action on a foreign judgment, subject to the debtor's right collaterally to attack it — a right the defendant did not exercise — the trial court did not err in rendering judgment for the plaintiff.
Argued February 24, 1982 —
Decided September 3, 1982
Action to collect a debt upon a foreign judgment, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, where the court, Saden, J., rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed. No error.
Lawrence N. Waterbury, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Jack L. Grogins, for the appellee (plaintiff).
On July 15, 1971, the plaintiff obtained a judgment by confession against the defendant in the Supreme Court of New York in the amount of $9028. This judgment was never satisfied before the defendant moved from New York to Connecticut. The present action was filed in 1979 and the trial court found that it was brought to obtain a judgment on this judgment in a Connecticut court. The lower court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of $9028 plus costs and rendered judgment accordingly, from which the defendant has appealed.
The complaint in its prayer for relief merely sought a weekly order and stated that the matter in demand exceeded $7500. The trial court concluded, however, that what the plaintiff was actually seeking was a Connecticut judgment on the New York judgment.
The issue here concerns the exclusivity of our Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which is codified in General Statutes 52-604 through 52609. Section 52-604 defines "foreign judgment" as "any judgment, decree or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state, except one obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment." Section 52-605 authorizes the summary enforcement of a properly registered foreign judgment. That section provides that when a judgment creditor files a certified copy of a foreign judgment in the court in which its enforcement is sought, and certifies that this judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, then "[s]uch foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state . . . ." General Statutes 52-605 (b). The parties conceded, and the trial court found, that this statute could not be relied upon here, since the New York judgment was obtained by confession. The defendant's claim, both at trial and in this appeal, is that 52-605 permanently barred the enforcement of this judgment in Connecticut and that the court erred, therefore, by rendering judgment for the plaintiff. This claim ignores the existence of General Statutes 52-607, however, which is dispositive of the issue.
In 1973, Connecticut adopted the 1964 revised version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; 13 U.L.A. 171, 173-179 (1975); although our version differs in certain material respects central to this appeal. See Public Acts 1973, No. 73-498. Our version gives different treatment to judgments obtained by confession or by default in appearance, as does the New York act. See N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law 5401-5402 (McKinney 1978). Since there are no reported Connecticut cases that have directly construed the act, however, the case law of the twenty jurisdictions adopting the 1964 act must be consulted to promote the goal of uniform interpretation. General Statutes 52-608; see note, 72 A.L.R.2d 1255; see generally 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
The trial court correctly held that 52-607 preserved the common-law right of a judgment creditor to bring an independent action on the judgment. This was a new action that was brought for judgment upon the foreign judgment. This proceeding was not a proceeding under 52-605 to enforce the foreign judgment itself Under 52-605 a foreign judgment other than one by default of appearance or confession that was duly registered with a Connecticut court could be executed upon locally. These two statutes therefore allow different remedies for a judgment creditor. Overmyer v. Eliot Realty, 83 Misc.2d 694, 701-702, 371 N.Y.S.2d 246 (1975); see also McGill v. Robbins, 231 Ark. 411, 413, 329 S.W.2d 540 (1959); Alexander Construction Co. v. Weaver, 3 Kan. App. 2d 298, 301, 594 P.2d 248 (1979); Hudson v. Hudson, 569 P.2d 521, 523 (Okla.App. 1976).
"[General Statutes] Sec. 52-607. OTHER RIGHTS OF ACTION PRESERVED. The right of a judgment creditor to proceed by an action on the judgment or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint instead of proceeding under sections 52-604 to 52-609, inclusive, remains unimpaired." For an excellent discussion of the common-law proceeding and the development of the Uniform Act, see Leflar, "The New Uniform Foreign Judgments Act," 3 Ark. L. Rev. 402 (1949).
The 52-605 proceeding, by which a foreign judgment that is not obtained by default of appearance or confession is treated the same as a judgment obtained in Connecticut, is a codification of the common-law rule of res judicata. See 2 Freeman, Judgments (5th Ed. 1925) 627, 632. Under the common law, a final judgment that is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties in the same or any other judicial tribunal. 2 Freeman, op. cit. 632; see also Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson, 123 Ariz. 319, 323, 599 P.2d 772 (1979). The effect of 52-605, therefore, is to establish a foreign judgment that is not obtained by a default in appearance or by confession as a domestic judgment that is conclusive of the defendant's indebtedness. Burchett v. Roncari, 181 Conn. 125, 129, 434 A.2d 941 (1980); accord Hospital Service v. Warehouse Production, 102 Misc.2d 872, 424 N.Y.S.2d 647 (1980); Joplin Corporation v. State ex rel. Grimes, 570 P.2d 1161, 1163 (Okla. 1977). Furthermore, the foreign judgment is not subject to collateral attack locally; Joplin Corporation v. State ex rel. Grimes, supra; 1 Freeman, op. cit. 305, 325; see generally Rathkopf v. Pearson, 148 Conn. 260, 265, 170 A.2d 135 (1961); but must be given full faith and credit. U.S. Const., art. IV 1; see generally Krueger v. Krueger, 179 Conn. 488, 490-91, 427 A.2d 400 (1980), and cases cited therein; Rathkopf v. Pearson, supra; accord Springfield Credit Union v. Johnson, supra; Overmeyer v. Eliot Realty, supra.
By providing a procedure for simply converting a properly registered foreign judgment into a Connecticut judgment, 52-605 is accomplishing the Act's purpose of providing "a speedy and economical method of doing that which it is required to do by the Constitution of the United States. It also relieves creditors and debtors of the additional cost and harassment of further litigation which would otherwise be incident to the enforcement of the foreign judgment." Commissioners' Prefatory Note to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 13 U.L.A. 171, 172 (1975); accord Alexander Construction Co. v. Weaver, 3 Kan. App.2d 298, 301, 594 P.2d 248 (1979).
Under 52-607 a foreign judgment creditor who could or did not rely upon 52-605 can still proceed by an independent action on the foreign judgment, since this remedy remains unimpaired under the statutory scheme. This independent action on the foreign judgment allows the debtor to attack collaterally the foreign judgment by establishing facts that would render the foreign judgment void. Rathkopf v. Pearson, supra, 265; 1 Freeman, op. cit. 305, 325. No such attack could be made, however, if the judgment creditor sought to proceed under 52-605 on a foreign judgment meeting the requirements of that statute. Burchett v. Roncari, supra.
We conclude that the plaintiff's action to recover a debt was preserved by General Statutes 52-607, and that the defendant's failure to attack the New York judgment in the trial court entitled the plaintiff to recovery.
Although the defendant stated at oral argument that the judgment by confession was procured under duress, we note that such a direct attack on the judgment should have been made before the New York court. 1 Freeman, Judgments (5th Ed. 1925) 304-307; 3 Freeman, op. cit. 1339-43. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to provide a transcript makes it impossible for us to review the record. Practice Book 3012(c) and 3060V; State v. Gibbs, 37 Conn. Sup. 840, 841, 439 A.2d 451 (1981).