713 N.E.2d 30 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1998
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *375
Defendant-appellant, Charlene Kovacs ("appellant"), appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas court denying her motion for relief from judgment that sought to vacate a foreign judgment filed by plaintiff-appellee, Discount Bridal Services, Inc. ("Discount Bridal"), under R.C.
The record reflects that, sometime in February 1993, appellant entered into a contractual relationship with Discount Bridal, a Maryland corporation, agreeing to become a dealer for the latter's bridal apparel in the Cleveland area. The agreement, and an amendment thereto, included inter alia (1) a noncompete clause effective for two years upon termination of the agreement (2) a forumselection clause mandating that any action on the contract be instituted in Maryland, and (3) a provision for the payment of attorney fees in the event that Discount Bridal prevails on any such action.
Appellant eventually terminated the agreement in August 1995, whereupon Discount Bridal instituted suit in Maryland seeking to enforce the noncompete clause and for associated attorney fees. Appellee, through counsel, informed Discount Bridal's Maryland counsel that she would not be answering the complaint and would instead defend any enforcement proceedings in Ohio. As a result, a default judgment was obtained against appellant in Maryland, and in an order journalized on January 28, 1997, the Maryland court enjoined appellant from marketing bridal apparel for a period of two years from the date the judgment is enrolled in Ohio. Appellant was further ordered to pay $1,347.92, plus interest, to Discount Bridal for attorney fees.
Discount Bridal subsequently filed a notice of foreign judgment in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C.
"Defendant's Motion for Relief from Judgment filed 3-19-97, is denied. Any attack on the judgment to occur in the proper forum, to wit, Maryland."
Appellant now appeals and assigns the following errors for our review:
"I. The court below erred in ruling that the judgment of the plaintiff could only be attacked in the state of Maryland. *376
"II. The court below erred in failing to grant the defendant/appellant a hearing on the issue of the Maryland court's jurisdiction, which jurisdiction was disputed in her motion for relief from judgment."
In support of her argument, appellant relies on United Std.Mgt. Corp. v. Mahoning Valley Solar Resources, Inc. (1984),
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected this type of analysis in Kennecorp Mtge. Brokers, Inc. v. Country ClubConvalescent Hosp., Inc. (1993),
As a threshold matter and contrary to appellant's contention, the burden of demonstrating the enforceability of such a clause falls upon the party challenging the clause. The Bremen, supra,
at 9-12,
Having failed to establish that the clause was not fairly bargained for or that the clause was the product of fraud or overreaching, it remains to be decided whether appellant could demonstrate that enforcement of the forum-selection clause would be unreasonable or unjust. Appellant, however, made no allegations or presented any argument that the clause was unreasonable or unjust. Consequently, we find the forum-selection clause to be enforceable.
Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is not well taken and is overruled.
R.C.
"The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of a court of common pleas. A foreign judgment filed pursuant to this section has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a court of common pleas and may be enforced or satisfied in same manner as a judgment of a court of common pleas."
A judgment of a sister state's court is subject to collateral attack in Ohio if there was no subject-matter or personal jurisdiction to render the judgment under the sister state's law, and under that law the judgment is void. Litsinger Sign Co., Inc.v. Am. Sign Co. (1967),
Because we find the forum-selection clause contained in the parties' agreement to be enforceable, appellant has, for all practical purposes, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Maryland court, thereby precluding collateral attack on this issue. Consequently, it was not error for the trial court to deny appellant's motion on this issue without a hearing.
Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is not well taken and is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
O'DONNELL, P.J., and KARPINSKI, J., concur.