224 A.3d 31
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Domus contracted with Signature to supply modular residential units for Dartmouth College; Domus later alleged the units were defective.
- Domus sued in New Hampshire; PFS (an inspector) impleaded Signature and multiple service attempts were made on Signature in Pennsylvania (certified mail, Lackawanna County sheriff, NH Secretary of State). Signature failed to appear and a New Hampshire court entered default and a final judgment for Domus (~$293,081 plus interest).
- Domus sought to enforce the New Hampshire judgment in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, by filing a praecipe under the Pennsylvania Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA).
- Signature moved to strike the foreign judgment in Pennsylvania, arguing Domus failed to properly authenticate the foreign judgment under the UEFJA and that Signature lacked notice of the damages hearing; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Superior Court held Domus did not attach the required certificate under either 42 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1738 when registering the judgment, so the registered judgment was facially invalid and the Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction to enforce it; the Superior Court reversed and struck the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Domus) | Defendant's Argument (Signature) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Domus properly authenticated the New Hampshire judgment when filing it under the UEFJA | Domus contended the NH judgment and docket entries were adequately certified/authenticated under Pennsylvania law (§5328(a)) | Signature argued Domus failed to include the required certificate attesting custody/form of the record, making the registration defective | Held: Domus failed to attach the required certificate under §5328(a) or §1738; registration was invalid and Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction; judgment stricken |
| Whether Domus provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the NJ damages proceeding before entering default judgment against Signature | Domus argued service efforts (mail, sheriff, Secretary of State) sufficed; trial court found notice adequate for default | Signature argued it received no notice of the damages hearing and thus lacked opportunity to defend | Held: Court did not reach this issue because judgment was stricken on authentication grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Price, 814 A.2d 262 (Pa.Super. 2002) (UEFJA requires strict compliance with authentication; lack of authenticated judgment deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Webb v. Consumer Auto Leasing, Ltd., 340 A.2d 865 (Pa.Super. 1975) (foreign judgment lacking required judicial certificate under §1738 is not properly authenticated)
- Rhoads v. Commonwealth, 620 A.2d 659 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (certification under §5328(a) must conform to statutory requirements)
- Oswald v. WB Public Square Associates, LLC, 80 A.3d 790 (Pa.Super. 2013) (petition to strike operates as demurrer to the record; void judgments may be attacked at any time)
- Reco Equipment, Inc. v. John T. Subrick Contracting, Inc., 780 A.2d 684 (Pa.Super. 2001) (standard of review for denial of petition to strike is abuse of discretion or error of law)
- Medina & Medina, Inc. v. Gurrentz Intern. Corp., 450 A.2d 108 (Pa.Super. 1982) (discusses authentication methods for out-of-state judgments)
- In re Opening of Ballot Boxes, Montour County, 718 A.2d 774 (Pa. 1998) (verification requirements can implicate jurisdictional issues and are not subject to waiver)