32 A.3d 1041
Me.2011Background
- Liberty retained Reliable for services in a federal case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Reliable served Liberty with a Pennsylvania complaint by certified mail; Liberty signed return receipts but did not answer.
- Reliable then issued a Notice of Intention to Take Default; Liberty again did not respond.
- A Pennsylvania default judgment was entered; later an amended default judgment increased damages to $136,761.38 and including attorney fees.
- Liberty petitioned to open the default judgment; Pennsylvania court denied; Liberty appealed and then withdrew the appeal.
- Reliable filed a Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment in Maine; Maine Superior Court entered a judgment enforcing the Pennsylvania default judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA default judgment is enforceable in Maine under the Enforcement Act. | Liberty argues the PA judgment is void due to defective service. | Liberty argues the service path suffices under PA rules and provides notice; more importantly, due process concerns arise from amended damages. | Enforceable; service under PA rules satisfied due process; no voidness under 60(b)(4). |
| Whether service by certified mail under PA rules established personal jurisdiction over Liberty in PA. | Liberty contends service did not confer PA personal jurisdiction under Maine rules. | Service complied with PA rules and provided actual notice; sufficient for jurisdiction. | PA court acquired personal jurisdiction; service was valid. |
| Whether the increased damages in the amended PA judgment violated Liberty's due process. | Liberty had no notice or opportunity to contest the higher damages. | Amended judgment was properly entered; amended amount flowed from original pleading; no due process violation shown. | Notvoid; due process concerns not established; amended judgment enforceable. |
| Whether Liberty’s Rule 60(b)(4) claim was properly analyzed given the nexus to jurisdiction and due process. | Liberty is entitled to relief because the judgment may be void due to due process issues. | Liberty bore burden to prove due process violation with competent evidence; failure to prove voidness. | Claim rejected on the merits; judgment not void under Rule 60(b)(4). |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Auth., 290 A.2d 362 (Me. 1972) (voidness standard for Rule 60(b)(4) relief is non-discretionary)
- Foley v. Adam, 638 A.2d 718 (Me. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard; voidness relief if jurisdictional or due process defects)
- Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9, 964 A.2d 621 (Me. 2009) (service reasonably calculated to give notice suffices for due process)
- Vargelis v. Minieri, 620 A.2d 275 (Me. 1993) (actual notice weighs against strict technical noncompliance)
- New Maine National Bank v. Nemon, 588 A.2d 1191 (Me. 1991) (burden on movant to show factual basis for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Reville v. Reville, 370 A.2d 249 (Me. 1977) (res judicata considerations when due process issues exist)
- Genujo Lok Beteiligungs GmbH v. Zorn, ME 2008 (Me. 2008) (Enforcement Act creates expedited enforcement when judgments are entitled to full faith and credit)