2013 Ohio 666
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Digitalbiz sought to domesticate two foreign judgments in Ohio against Friedman-Swift.
- Judgments were entered in the District of Columbia Small Claims and Conciliation Branch by default against Friedman-Swift.
- Digitalbiz filed the judgments in Ohio under R.C. 2329.022; Friedman-Swift objected to domestication arguing lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Digitalbiz argued Friedman-Swift waived lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to object in the foreign court.
- A trial-court magistrate overruled Friedman-Swift’s objection; the trial court later denied domestication, holding the foreign court never acquired personal jurisdiction.
- Digitalbiz appealed, contending the trial court properly allowed a personal-jurisdiction defense; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a foreign judgment be collaterally attacked for lack of personal jurisdiction in Ohio? | Digitalbiz | Friedman-Swift | Yes; foreign judgments may be collaterally attacked for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Did Friedman-Swift waive lack of personal jurisdiction by not challenging it in the foreign court? | Digitalbiz | Friedman-Swift | No; waiver does not bar collateral attack if defendant did not appear in the foreign court. |
| May a party first challenge domestication of a foreign judgment in Ohio without prior appearance in the foreign court? | Digitalbiz | Friedman-Swift | Yes; appearance in Ohio to contest domestication is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co., 11 Ohio St.2d 1, 227 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1967) (foreign judgments may be collaterally attacked for lack of jurisdiction)
- Rita Ann Distrib. v. Brown Drug Co., 164 Ohio App.3d 145, 2005-Ohio-5786, 841 N.E.2d 400 (2d Dist. 2005) (defendant may challenge foreign judgments in Ohio when not appearing in foreign court)
- Dollar Bank v. Bernstein Group, Inc., 71 Ohio App.3d 530, 594 N.E.2d 1074 (10th Dist. 1991) (foreign judgments generally given full faith and credit but subject to collateral attack)
- Durkin v. Gran Turismo Jaguar, 11th Dist. No. 98-L-101, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6120 (Ohio 1999) (full faith and credit with possibility of collateral attack on jurisdiction)
- Trimax Holdings v. Larson, 1998 Ohio App LEXIS 3007 (Ohio App. Decided 1998) (only void judgments are subject to collateral attack)
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (due process limitations on jurisdiction; supports collateral attack framework)