246 Cal. App. 4th 1387
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hawkins and appellant Flordeliza Hawkins obtained a SunTrust revolving credit secured by a mortgage on a South Carolina home; they defaulted in 2010.
- SunTrust filed a judicial foreclosure in South Carolina; affidavits of personal service stated both were served on December 9, 2011; default and foreclosure judgment followed in April 2012, plus a deficiency judgment and eviction.
- Appellant appealed in South Carolina claiming improper service; the appeal was dismissed for procedural defects in 2014, leaving the foreclosure judgment final.
- While the South Carolina appeal was pending, appellant filed a wrongful foreclosure suit in Ventura County alleging no proper service and seeking damages and lost rent.
- SunTrust moved asserting res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the South Carolina judgment; the California trial court took judicial notice of that judgment and granted judgment on the pleadings for SunTrust.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the South Carolina judgment precluded relitigation of the personal-service issue under sister-state law, full faith and credit, and collateral estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the South Carolina foreclosure judgment bars the California wrongful-foreclosure suit | Hawkins: judgment is invalid here because she was not properly served in South Carolina | SunTrust: the South Carolina judgment is final and precludes relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel); affidavits show personal service | Held: barred — res judicata/collateral estoppel apply; judgment on the pleadings affirmed |
| Whether personal jurisdiction/service was adjudicated in prior action | Hawkins: service was defective and thus SC court lacked jurisdiction over her | SunTrust: SC court found personal service; absent fraud/collusion that finding stands for preclusion purposes | Held: SC court’s service finding precludes relitigation; Hawkins should have moved to vacate in SC |
| Whether California court properly took judicial notice of the sister-state judgment/facts | Hawkins: trial court erred by taking judicial notice of factual findings (service) | SunTrust: courts may take judicial notice of judgments and their findings for preclusion purposes | Held: Judicial notice of the SC judgment and its service finding was proper for preclusion analysis |
| Whether piecemeal relitigation is allowed where a prior default judgment may have been erroneous | Hawkins: the prior default may be erroneous; merits should be heard here | SunTrust: full faith and credit/res judicata prevent splitting causes and re-litigating the same primary right | Held: Promoting finality and preventing vexatious litigation, preclusion applies even if prior factual finding might be erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (2002) (distinguishes claim preclusion and issue preclusion as res judicata components)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of an issue decided by a valid final judgment)
- Gagnon Co. v. Nevada Desert Inn, Inc., 45 Cal.2d 448 (1955) (validity of foreign judgment determined by law of rendering state)
- Plum Creek Dev. Co. v. City of Conway, 512 S.E.2d 106 (S.C. 1999) (res judicata/issue preclusion under South Carolina law for related claims)
- Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 419 S.E.2d 217 (S.C. 1992) (elements required to establish res judicata)
- Kilroy v. State of California, 119 Cal.App.4th 140 (2004) (distinguishes judicial notice of a prior judgment’s existence from relitigation barred by preclusion doctrines)
- Nakash v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.3d 59 (1987) (res judicata bars relitigation even when prior factual determinations may have been erroneous)
- Bank of America v. Jennett, 77 Cal.App.4th 104 (1999) (gives full faith and credit to a foreign default-judgment foreclosure resulting in a deficiency judgment)