Monark Boat Co. v. Fischer

Citations: 292 Ark. 544; 732 S.W.2d 123; 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2186Docket: 87-34

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 29, 1987; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal centers on whether a party, previously contesting personal jurisdiction in Ohio, can later challenge that jurisdiction when the judgment is sought to be registered in Arkansas. Additional issues include the court's failure to register a judgment for the appellant's counterclaim, the admission of Ohio court findings into evidence, and the consideration of Ohio law regarding interest without prior written notice to the appellant.

The court concluded that: 1) the Ohio court's finding of personal jurisdiction over the appellant is res judicata and binding in Arkansas; 2) the failure to register the counterclaim judgment was not erroneous as the appellant did not request such registration; 3) the Ohio findings were properly admitted as they were self-authenticated under Arkansas law; and 4) there was no error in considering Ohio law on interest, as the appellee's pleadings sufficiently notified the appellant.

The case involved the appellant, a boat manufacturer in Arkansas, and the appellee, a dealer in Ohio. The appellee sued the appellant for conversion related to an engine that was supposed to be used in a boat for the appellee but was instead misappropriated by the appellant. The Ohio court ruled in favor of the appellee for $5,250, while the appellant obtained a separate judgment for $383.04 on its counterclaim. The appellee sought to register the judgment in Drew County, Arkansas, under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The circuit court determined that the Ohio court had jurisdiction due to the appellant's counterclaim and ordered the judgment registered, totaling $7,456, including principal, interest, and court costs.

Res judicata precludes the appellant from contesting the Ohio court's jurisdiction, as the appellant voluntarily appeared to challenge that jurisdiction and is bound by the court's decision, which it could only appeal through proper channels, not in a collateral proceeding. The Ohio court ruled in favor of the appellant on its counterclaim, but the appellant failed to request that the Arkansas court register this judgment, so the trial court's refusal to grant such relief was appropriate. Regarding the admissibility of the Ohio court's findings and conclusions, the appellant argued they were improperly authenticated, but the findings were deemed self-authenticating under Arkansas Rules of Evidence. The document included an official seal and certification from the Clerk of Courts, confirming its authenticity and making it admissible as an official record without requiring additional evidence.

Ark. R. Civ. P. 44.1 mandates that a party must provide written notice when intending to raise a matter of foreign law. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by applying Ohio's ten percent interest rate to the judgment without such notice. The appellee's request for registration of the Ohio judgment was made under Ark. Stat. Ann. 29-801, et seq., part of the Uniform Registration of Foreign Judgments Act. Although the reference to 'ci seq' was deemed imprecise, it sufficiently notified the appellant that the appellee would adhere to the act's provisions. Specifically, Section 29-814 states that when a registered foreign judgment is finalized, the court must include interest according to the law of the state where the judgment was issued. By seeking registration under this act, the appellee effectively informed the appellant that interest would be assessed based on Ohio law. The court affirmed the decision.