Domus, Inc., Aplt. v. Signature Building Systems
54 MAP 2020
| Pa. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Domus obtained a default judgment in New Hampshire against Signature and filed a praecipe to domesticate that judgment in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
- The praecipe included docket entries and the New Hampshire judgment but did not include the certificate/authentication required by the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), 42 Pa.C.S. §4306(b).
- Signature moved to strike the domesticated judgment; the common pleas court denied the motion after hearings and discovery.
- On appeal the Superior Court reversed, holding that absence of the UEFJA authentication deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction and thus the defect was non-waivable.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review on the narrow question whether failure to authenticate under UEFJA implicates subject matter jurisdiction; it reversed the Superior Court and remanded to resolve whether the authentication objection was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Domus) | Defendant's Argument (Signature) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to authenticate a foreign judgment under UEFJA deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., non-waivable). | Authentication is procedural/technical, not jurisdictional; courts of common pleas have unlimited original jurisdiction over such actions; many sister-state decisions treat authentication as non-jurisdictional. | Authentication is essential to subject matter jurisdiction; lack of certificate prevents the court from enforcing the foreign judgment and is not curable. | The failure to authenticate under §4306(b) is not a subject matter jurisdictional defect. It affects the court's power to grant relief in a particular case, not its competency to hear the class of cases. |
| Whether Signature preserved (did not waive) its authentication objection. | Domus: Signature waived the objection by failing to properly raise it in Rule 1925(b) and on appeal. | Signature: (argued below that authentication is jurisdictional and therefore non-waivable). | Not decided on the merits. The Supreme Court remanded to the Superior Court to determine whether Signature waived the authentication objection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Price, 814 A.2d 262 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Superior Court decision addressing enforcement of foreign judgment and authentication issues)
- In re Opening of Ballot Boxes, Montour County, 718 A.2d 774 (Pa. 1998) (election-law case holding lack of verification under Election Code may defeat invocation of court process)
- Assouline v. Reynolds, 219 A.3d 1131 (Pa. 2019) (discussion of subject matter jurisdiction standards)
- Riedel v. Human Relations Comm’n, 739 A.2d 121 (Pa. 1999) (distinguishing jurisdiction from power)
- In re Melograne, 812 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 2002) (holding that claims relating to a tribunal’s power are waivable)
- Commonwealth Capital Funding, Inc. v. Franklin Square Hosp., 620 A.2d 1154 (Pa. Super. 1993) (noting foreign judgments entered without jurisdiction are void; unrelated to authentication requirement here)
- Griggs v. Gibson, 754 P.2d 783 (Colo. App. 1988) (Colorado appellate case cited regarding UEFJA enforcement and consequences of failing to file authenticated judgment)
- Concannon v. Hampton, 584 P.2d 218 (Okla. 1978) (persuasive authority holding authentication is evidentiary, not jurisdictional)