955 N.W.2d 102
N.D.2021Background:
- In 2010 Oden was injured in Missouri while employed by Minot Builders Supply; North Dakota WSI initially paid benefits.
- Oden filed a Missouri workers’ compensation claim in 2013 and later entered a 2016 stipulated settlement in Missouri that purportedly listed an attorney signing for WSI; WSI contends it was not a party and had not authorized the settlement.
- WSI suspended and later denied North Dakota benefits and sought reimbursement after Oden’s Missouri settlement; Oden did not seek reconsideration from WSI.
- WSI sued Oden in Burleigh County (2018) for reimbursement; the district court granted summary judgment for WSI, finding WSI was not a party to the Missouri settlement; this Court affirmed (2020).
- Oden later obtained a Missouri judgment based on the Missouri settlement, filed to domesticate that foreign judgment in Grand Forks County; WSI moved to vacate and the court vacated the transcribed Missouri judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) as void.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Faith and Credit for Missouri judgment | Missouri judgment is entitled to full faith and credit and valid under Missouri law | Missouri judgment lacked jurisdiction over WSI because WSI was not a party to the settlement | Judgment vacated; not entitled to full faith and credit because rendering court lacked jurisdiction over WSI |
| Administrative res judicata (whether Missouri proceedings preclude Burleigh ruling) | Missouri administrative proceeding made WSI a party; res judicata should bar Burleigh decision | Burleigh court already litigated and found WSI was not a party; Oden may not relitigate under a new theory | Res judicata bars Oden’s new theory; Burleigh decision precludes relitigation of whether WSI was a party |
| Effect of Burleigh judgment while appeal pending | Court should have stayed vacatur because Burleigh decision was on appeal and could be reversed | Burleigh judgment was final and remains final while on appeal; res judicata may be applied | Court properly gave Burleigh judgment preclusive effect despite pending appeal; finality not defeated by ordinary appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Workforce Safety & Ins. v. Oden, 951 N.W.2d 187 (prior ND decision affirming that WSI was not a party to the Missouri settlement)
- Brossart v. Janke, 942 N.W.2d 856 (explains limits to full faith and credit for foreign judgments)
- Roe v. Doe, 649 N.W.2d 566 (Rule 60(b)(4) void-judgment motions reviewed plenarily)
- Dockter v. Dockter, 918 N.W.2d 35 (void judgments limited to lack of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)
- State v. Peltier, 915 N.W.2d 115 (no district court discretion to deny relief when judgment lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Westman v. Dessellier, 459 N.W.2d 545 (final judgment remains final while on appeal; res judicata may apply)