Harry Kaufmann Motorcars, Inc. v. Schumaker Performance, Inc.
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 107
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- HKM, a Wisconsin-sold boat purchaser, and Schumaker entered into a boat sale at the Boat Show in Wisconsin, with HKM paying a $9,000 down payment.
- Schumaker delivered the boat to HKM in Wisconsin and later retrieved it for repairs, then redelivered it to Wisconsin after repairs were completed.
- HKM filed suit in Wisconsin (Dane County) for breach of contract and warranty against Schumaker and Eliminator; Schumaker was served in Indiana and failed to appear.
- Wisconsin default judgment was entered against Schumaker on June 30, 2010 for $436,651.71 in Dane County.
- HKM sought to domesticate the Wisconsin judgment in Indiana; Schumaker moved to dismiss arguing lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Indiana trial court granted dismissal; HKM appealed, arguing Wisconsin had personal jurisdiction over Schumaker and that the Wisconsin judgment should be given full faith and credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin long-arm 801.05(5)(e) authorizes jurisdiction | HKM contends Wisconsin meets 801.05(5)(e) as goods were received in Wisconsin. | Schumaker argues no Wisconsin long-arm basis for in-state contact pertaining to Wisconsin-ordered goods. | Wisconsin long-arm statute satisfied; jurisdiction valid. |
| Whether due process is satisfied for Wisconsin jurisdiction | HKM asserts minimum contacts with Wisconsin via contract formation, delivery, payment, and service of action. | Schumaker claims contacts are insufficient or not reasonably predictable of suit in Wisconsin. | Due process satisfied; meaningful, substantial contacts with Wisconsin exist. |
| Whether Wisconsin judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Indiana | HKM asserts full faith and credit, presuming validity of foreign judgments unless jurisdiction lacking. | Schumaker argues Wisconsin lacked jurisdiction, so the judgment should be void for credit purposes. | Wisconsin judgment is entitled to full faith and credit; foreign jurisdiction is sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts required for jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due process limits on in-state jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in specific jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment concept foundational to jurisdiction)
- Capitol Fixture and Woodworking Grp. v. Woodma Distribs., Inc., 147 Wis. 2d 157, 432 N.W.2d 647 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) (three-factor test for Wisconsin long-arm 801.05(5)(e))
- Woodma Distribs., Inc. v. Capitol Fixture & Woodworking Grp., 432 N.W.2d 650 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) (delivery, installation, and service contracts create minimum contacts)
- Commercial Coin Laundry Sys. v. Enneking, 766 N.E.2d 433 (Ind.Ct. App. 2002) (foreign judgment collateral attack presumption of validity)
- Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind.Ct. App. 1993) (collateral attack framework for foreign judgments)
- G.I.W. Indus., Inc. v. Patriot Materials, Inc., 926 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (foreign judgment validity and jurisdiction in collateral attacks)
- Wisconsin Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Pennant Prod., Inc., 619 F.2d 676 (7th Cir. 1980) (contacts analysis for jurisdiction in similar contexts)
- Zerbel v. H.L. Federman & Co., 48 Wis. 2d 54, 179 N.W.2d 872 (Wis. 1970) (statutory presumption regarding due process and jurisdiction)