Global Oceanic Enter., Inc., et al. v. Hynum
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00471-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-00471-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2003 Opinion Author: Cobb, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Full faith and credit - Jurisdiction - Res judicata Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Easley, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-15-2002 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: Summary Judgment in favor of Hynum Case Number: 99-0094 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GLOBAL OCEANIC ENTERPRISES, INC. AND
RICHARD COPPOLA |
O. STEPHEN MONTAGNET, III |
||
| Appellee: | WAYNE HYNUM | WAYNE HYNUM ALLEN LAMAR BURRELL |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Full faith and credit - Jurisdiction - Res judicata |
| Summary of the Facts: | Global Oceanic Enterprises, Inc. and Richard Coppola enrolled a Pennsylvania judgment against attorney Wayne Hynum with the Forrest County Circuit Clerk. Hynum objected to the enrollment, claiming Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction over him. Both Global and Hynum moved for summary judgment. The judge found in favor of Hynum, and Global appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hynum challenged the Pennsylvania court’s jurisdiction by entering a special appearance, through Pennsylvania counsel, for the limited purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction. The Pennsylvania judge denied and dismissed Hynum’s challenge and ordered him to answer Global’s complaint within twenty days, which he did not do. Global argues that the Pennsylvania court’s decision on jurisdiction is binding and bars Hynum’s collateral attack of the judgment in Forrest County. To apply res judicata to jurisdictional issues, a prior challenge to the jurisdictional claim is required. A defendant may ignore the complaint and summons, and, then if a default judgment is issued against him, he may challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding when the plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment; he may voluntarily waive any lack of personal jurisdiction and submit to the distant court’s jurisdiction; or he may submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of challenging jurisdiction in which case the court’s determination on the issue of jurisdiction will be res judicata on that issue in any further proceedings. Hynum raised the exact same challenge to jurisdiction in the Pennsylvania court as he did in the Forrest County Circuit Court. The issue of jurisdiction was completely litigated in Pennsylvania, and thus the Pennsylvania judgment was valid. Hynum is prevented from relitigating the jurisdictional issue because his collateral attack is predicated on the same allegations of misrepresentation as asserted before the Pennsylvania court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
