1L Civ Pro Legal Question

[Rhythmdvl]

Hi folks,

First a disclaimer: This is a question from an old (December of 2000 for those keeping score at home) exam. Our study group has been going through them in preparation for Tuesday morning’s Civ Pro exam, the last of our first year (infinite number of smilies) This is not a question for an upcoming exam, nor is it in any way connected to homework or studying we are to be doing on our own. There are no prohibitions to working on these in a group (in fact it is encouraged) or seeking answers from any source. (Except the professor, who isn’t available.) As such, this question should pose no violations to our school’s honor code or a set of personal ethics as to seeking outside help. If you have reservations, feel free to e-mail me, or call attention to Gadarene a fellow student extraordinaire. If anyone thinks of an ethical issue post it before answering, as I think both of us will feel better. Now that I hope I’ve taken care of the ‘don’t do other’s homework’ problem, on to the question:

Speaking of Gad’, this is question 12 from the December 2000 exam. This is based on a hypothetical (I believe the whole history is irrelevant to the present question) in a Civil Procedure course, mainly based on the FRCP. The basic history is that Pilar has won a 3.5 million dollar judgment against Divine. That suit was in Federal court of Arizona. Pilar then moves to enforce the judgment by having Divine’s Arizona property sold in a sheriff’s sale.

The Federal court permits the sale of Divine’s property in Arizona, but Pilar is able to raise only $400,000 from the sale, far less than her #3.5 million judgment. Pilar now discovers that Divine also owns property in New Mexico, and she sues Divine in state court there for the remainder of the damages due her. Pilar moves in accordance with New Mexico procedure for a judgment as to liability, attaching the Federal-court judgment (from D. Arizona). Divine cross-moves in accordance with New Mexico procedure to dismiss the claim because of res judicata. New Mexico law does not permit suits for judgment deficiencies (requiring all enforcement in one suit with no follow-up enforcement actions), but Arizona and the federal courts do permit such deficiency suits to enforce a previously-won judgment. In ruling on the cross motions, the New Mexico trial court should:
[ul]
[li]A – follow its own law and dismiss Pilar’s deficiency suit because each state is free to make its own choice of law rules and dispose of cases over which it has personal jurisdiction (as New Mexico does here because Divine owns property in New Mexico).[/li][li]B – follow Federal law and permit the deficiency suit because New Mexico must give the same effect to the federal judgment as another federal court would give it pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.[/li][li]C – follow Arizona law and permit the deficiency suit because, under Erie, the federal court in Arizona would need to follow Arizona law in a diversity action, and New Mexico must give full faith and credit to the same rules of res judicata.[/li][li]D – follow Arizona law because when there are multiple outstanding judgments, the last in time rule applies – and Arizona’s was the last judgment to be rendered.[/li][li]E – deny both motions and force relitigation of the claim because it is not fair under these circumstances to give either party a res-judicata advantage when the law is divided over whether res judicata should apply. [/ul][/li]

Well, that’s it. Six of us went round and round on that question for a while, with no clear consensus as to which is the correct answer. None of the old exams comes with an answer key, so there is no way for us to tell what it should be. Again, this is a Civ Pro course based on fed law, and any reference to states is solely for the purposes of the hypothetical, not for understanding nuances of state law. Does the answer seem obvious to anyone out there? Is Gadarene laughing at me for not knowing right away which it should be? If you do answer this, let me know if you wouldn’t mind me posting a couple others – it gets quite frustrating trying to work these out but not knowing if we worked them out right. For now, I’ll thank you for any help you offer.

Thanks Dopers!!

Rhythmdvl

[Gadarene]

Except the professor, who isn’t available.

First off, you’re a master of understatement.

Second, our professor’s questions and answers are notoriously poorly worded–which may be one reason he refuses to provide an answer key. Did you hear that another person in our class took last semester’s test to a Civ Pro professor she knew, who then declared the questions to be hopelessly muddy such that not even he could be sure of the right answers?

Anyway, the question: Um. This is quasi in rem, right? If so, no res judicata attaches and the answer is A. But the answers are really confusing, and I feel like I’m missing something. Let me look at my notes, and I’ll be back.

[Rhythmdvl]

First off, you’re a master of understatement

Had to understate it … this isn’t the pit

The way I’m looking at it, this is a misdirection. Everything we’ve done with res has to do with granting FF&C/S.C. to the merits of the issues. That NM has to accept the debt as given, and can’t relitigate any of the issues or claims raised in the first action. But if you separate the right from the remedy (Democracy and Coercion slipping in! :eek: ) than you have an accepted debt, but a disputed enforcement mechanism. Look at rule 64 (Seizure of Person or Property) it tells the court to follow the property seizure laws of the state in which it sits (came up in question 11). That appears to me to say that the courts can have a valid judgment, but may be without a method of procuring property. This makes A seem right, but I don’t like the ‘choice of laws’ phrase in the answer. This doesn’t strike me as a choice of laws rule.

B seems wrong for some of the above reasons. It is giving credit to the federal judgment, just not duplicating the enforcement mechanism. If it had to, than that means that state A can have its strict enforcement mechanisms exported to all fifty states as long as a defendant has property there. This leads to federalism questions, as it prevents states from protecting their citizen’s personal property and the way it is attached. If this wasn’t a concern, than why draft R64 like that?

C is out because I don’t see any Eerie question here. Eerie would apply to a fed court following NM law, not Arizona.

D strikes me as not answering the question. Sure, AZ’s judgment is last in time and it should get full effect. But that has nothing to do with whether NM can be compelled to hear a deficiency action.

E is plain silly – relitigation is not on the table for obvious reasons.

So A kind of makes sense, but not for very good reasons. I can’t remember the arguments folks were making for the other choices that garnered serious consideration. So in a bit of frustration I posted here, hoping that more practiced minds will see right through it. Ugh… question 18 gave us a runaround as well.

A few of us will be over at Xandos on Cap Hill tonight from ten to midnight if you’re interested, and then again at Starbucks next to it tomorrow afternoon at one. More the merrier! 'Course, if Bricker or any other DC area lawyer reads this and wants eternal gratitude and infinite coffee…
Heading out…
Rhythmdvl

[Rhythmdvl]

First off, you’re a master of understatement

Had to understate it … this isn’t the pit

The way I’m looking at it, this is a misdirection. Everything we’ve done with res has to do with granting FF&C/S.C. to the merits of the issues. That NM has to accept the debt as given, and can’t relitigate any of the issues or claims raised in the first action. But if you separate the right from the remedy (Democracy and Coercion slipping in! :eek: ) than you have an accepted debt, but a disputed enforcement mechanism. Look at rule 64 (Seizure of Person or Property) it tells the court to follow the property seizure laws of the state in which it sits (came up in question 11). That appears to me to say that the courts can have a valid judgment, but may be without a method of procuring property. This makes A seem right, but I don’t like the ‘choice of laws’ phrase in the answer. This doesn’t strike me as a choice of laws rule.

B seems wrong for some of the above reasons. It is giving credit to the federal judgment, just not duplicating the enforcement mechanism. If it had to, than that means that state A can have its strict enforcement mechanisms exported to all fifty states as long as a defendant has property there. This leads to federalism questions, as it prevents states from protecting their citizen’s personal property and the way it is attached. If this wasn’t a concern, than why draft R64 like that?

C is out because I don’t see any Eerie question here. Eerie would apply to a fed court following NM law, not Arizona.

D strikes me as not answering the question. Sure, AZ’s judgment is last in time and it should get full effect. But that has nothing to do with whether NM can be compelled to hear a deficiency action.

E is plain silly – relitigation is not on the table for obvious reasons.

So A kind of makes sense, but not for very good reasons. I can’t remember the arguments folks were making for the other choices that garnered serious consideration. So in a bit of frustration I posted here, hoping that more practiced minds will see right through it. Ugh… question 18 gave us a runaround as well.

A few of us will be over at Xandos on Cap Hill tonight from ten to midnight if you’re interested, and then again at Starbucks next to it tomorrow afternoon at one. More the merrier! 'Course, if Bricker or any other DC area lawyer reads this and wants eternal gratitude and infinite coffee…
Heading out…
Rhythmdvl

[Gadarene]

Forgive my ignorance, Rhythm…it isn’t quasi in rem? Keep in mind that I haven’t looked over the test yet (doing that tomorrow).

I was actually supposed to go to the Cap Hill Starbucks today, but begged off to finish reviewing my notes. I might just be there tomorrow.

[Billdo]

What I would do is enter the District of Arizona judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and avoid the whole state court problem by enforcing the federal judgment. That’s the nice thing about federal judgments, you can quickly and easily get them entered in any other district, without having to start a separate enforcement action.

Come to think of it, based on that bit of advice from the world of practice, I would imagine that B was the answer he was looking for. If the N.M. federal court would enforce the judgment, the N.M. state court should enforce the judgment as well.

As a general rule (I believe), courts are obliged to give a judgment the preclusive effect that it would have in the rendering court.

[Rhythmdvl]

Gadarene
It is quasi in rem of sorts, but I don’t think it is applicable to the question. The whole QIR shebang had to do with assertion of personal jurisdiction – something that doesn’t appear (to me) to be an issue here at all. But if I really knew the answer to the question, I wouldn’t have posted it, so if you think QIR fits, let me know how. [sup]*[/sup]

Bildo
Please forgive my 1L-thickness, but I am having problems fitting your post into the question. From what I understand (which is very little), getting the judgment itself entered isn’t the problem. The NM state court is taking the judgment from the AZ federal court as a given. It is not questioning that there is a debt there. So they are just about to enforce the judgment and sell Divine’s property. However, Divine makes a defensive move and offers up the AZ enforcement action. NM has to give it preclusive effect, so Pilar can’t challenge that. According to NM law, if someone has already made one enforcement action (which is deemed proved in this case) they are precluded from beginning a second action on the same judgment in New Mexico. So even if the second enforcement action is brought in a federal court in New Mexico, it would have to follow NM law and also not allow the second enforcement action.

So, all courts, federal and state, have to give the judgment (the debt) full faith and credit. They all acknowledge that there is a valid debt there, and no court can relitigate the issues underlying the original claim. That, however, says nothing about how a court should enforce the judgment. Again, looking to R64, it says that each district court is bound to follow the forum state’s rules as to seizure of property. That implies that there is ample room for states to differ. So rather than have one uniform federal standard for seizing property to enforce a judgment, they all follow the rules of the state. So, can one state’s rules of attachment follow a defendant throughout the country? Is NM forced to apply non-state rules as to enforcement? Intuitively I’d say no, but my intuition is not worth very much this early in my education.

Lastly, to build a bit on real-world examples, two things come to mind. (Keep in mind that I’m only a 1L, and law school-learning still has a long way to go to catch up to TV-learning.) What about state-based bankruptcy protection? Every once in a while you see a fluff-news report on how Florida is a haven for scam artists who rack up a huge amount of debt, buy a mansion in FL and declare bankruptcy. Florida doesn’t allow attachment of a person’s permanent residence (or something like that) so theoretically penniless people live in grand houses. If any state’s attachment laws followed any defendant’s property, these types of havens couldn’t exist. Second, consider marital property laws. Though it is getting more uniform, for a while (and still in some places I think) a creditor may or may not have the ability to attach the non-debtor spouse’s property. These local laws ostensibly set up for the protection of state citizens would be useless for out of state judgments.

Rhythmdvl, still not getting it.

[sup]*[/sup]Meeting a couple folks tomorrow at nine-thirty in the library Atrium, then off to Starbucks at one if you are interested.

[Gadarene]

It is quasi in rem of sorts, but I don’t think it is applicable to the question. The whole QIR shebang had to do with assertion of personal jurisdiction – something that doesn’t appear (to me) to be an issue here at all. But if I really knew the answer to the question, I wouldn’t have posted it, so if you think QIR fits, let me know how.

Well, choice A mentions personal jurisdiction. Full faith and credit (28 USC § 1738) only applies to state judgments if the court rendering the judgment has proper personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. And quasi in rem actions aren’t entitled to full faith and credit, because they affect only the property attached in that state (in this case, Arizona) before judgment. It seems to me, then, that if the case involves a quasi in rem action, choice A is the only one that logically fits.

But if it isn’t quasi in rem (and by now I’m totally confused), then disregard all of that.

[chula]

I’m glad I’m not answering this question. You have multiple choice exams in law school?! I don’t have the energy to read this question closely, but my instinct is B. Part of the question is missing, right? That makes it a little more confusing. Was she in federal court under diversity or federal question? I’m with Billdo, it seems like she should be in NM federal court. On my old Civ Pro exam (which I got an A on and promptly forgot everything), I wrote: “While it is accepted that the Supremacy Clause would require the state court to apply the federal preclusion rules if the first case had been brought under a federal question, there is no established rule for diversity actions.” Does that help? Or have I made it more confusing? Good luck.

[Billdo]

First of all, from a practitioner’s viewpoint, the judgment must be enforcable in New Mexico. You simply ARE able to go after property in-state with an out-of-state judgment, and not to be able to do so would fail some sort of constitutional test, whether full faith and credit, supremacy, or at the very least due process.

Part of the problem may be based on what it means not to have deficiency suits. If the action all took place in New Mexico, the judicial sale of the first batch of property would have taken place as a follow-on part of the original action. If the judgment creditor subsequently discovered additional property in state, the original action would have to be reopened, and further enforcement proceedings would have to be taken under its authority. The judgment creditor would not have to (and indeed could not) open a second action for the deficiency.

If it were a Arizona state court judgment, it would be entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico. Although New Mexico courts may have a procedural rule that all enforcement proceetings must be in the original action (i.e. no deficiency suits), here there is no original New Mexico action in which the enforcement proceedings could have been brought (and the Arizona courts obviously have no jurisdiction over New Mexico property). Under full faith and credit, New Mexico would be required to provide a forum for enforcement of the Arizona judgment (a substantive right), and the New Mexico procedural rule as to which action the enforcement proceedings should be under must yield.

Since it is a federal judgment, full faith and credit as such doesn’t apply, so I guess that it must be supremacy. If the enforcement proceedings were in the New Mexico federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that you can use state enforcement methods in enforcing the federal judgment. However, the state rules as to which action an enforcement proceeding should be brought in would not apply (because it’s already validly in federal court). Accordingly, under supremacy the New Mexico state courts must give the federal judgment the effect it would have in a federal court – answer B.

[Gadarene]

Thought of something else. Amber and I are sitting here working this out, and we’ve pretty much come down to A or C. It turns on whether the Arizona action is quasi in rem or not–which in turn, I think, depends on whether the Arizona property was attached before judgment (your synopsis above isn’t clear on this point). If the property was attached prior to judgment, then this is a quasi in rem action–the court expected that Pilar would reap her reward from the sale of the property, and the fact that that sale fell below $3.5 million wouldn’t mean that she was owed any more money from any of Divine’s other property–no full faith and credit would be given. If, however, the property wasn’t attached before judgment, then it’s not a quasi in rem action, and Pilar is entitled to seek the remainder of the judgment from Divine’s New Mexico property.

A or C. That’s our story; we’re sticking to it.

[Gadarene]

Or B.

[Rhythmdvl]

Ah, indecisiveness.

See page 948 from Civil Procedure, Materials to Frustrate the Hell Out of You in a Basic Course, Field, Kaplan & Clermont. Last full paragraph:

In deciding the effect to be given a judgment that the forum court has determined to be valid, the law to be applied is the res judicata law that the rendering court would apply, again a law that includes and externally imposed constraints. However, with respect to the method of enforcement, the forum court will apply its own law, subject to the requirement that the method not be so complex or expensive as to burden unduly the enforcement of nondomestic judgments. (emphasis added)

Which almost gives us a clear answer. For the reasons I was harping on above, I’d think that A still fits. The question seems to turn on the method of enforcement, not a reexamination of the merits. But then that last sentence from the book kicks in. The NM certainly burdens the enforcement of the judgment, the question remains, does it unduly burden it? :rolleyes:
Rhythmdvl

[Jodi]

B – follow Federal law and permit the deficiency suit because New Mexico must give the same effect to the federal judgment as another federal court would give it pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

No. the Supremacy Clause is not implicated because there is no state law conflicting with a federal law – i.e., there is no federal enforcement statute that is different than the states’ ones. (Not any one given from the fact pattern, anyway.)

C – follow Arizona law and permit the deficiency suit because, under Erie, the federal court in Arizona would need to follow Arizona law in a diversity action, and New Mexico must give full faith and credit to the same rules of res judicata.

Erie is not implicated because enforcement of a judgment is not a procedural matter, so that answer is wrong.

More in a minute.

[Jodi]

D – follow Arizona law because when there are multiple outstanding judgments, the last in time rule applies – and Arizona’s was the last judgment to be rendered.

No. Does an action to enforce a judgment itself constitute a separate judgment? I would guess not. I don’t think we’re dealing with a case of “multiple outstanding judgments;” we’re dealing with an attempt to execute against a single judgment.

E – deny both motions and force relitigation of the claim because it is not fair under these circumstances to give either party a res-judicata advantage when the law is divided over whether res judicata should apply.

No. The claim would not be subject to relitigation, because the question implicated is again one of execution of the judgment, not the validity of the underlying claim. Furthermore, there is no apparent ruling in the Federal case on the issue of where and under what circumstances the judgment may be executed, so res judicata is not implicated.

So my best, wild-ass guess is “A.” Even if I didn’t parse it out like that, I’d still pick “A.” The key to the problem to me is “New Mexico law does not permit suits for judgment deficiencies (requiring all enforcement in one suit with no follow-up enforcement actions).” If it is in New Mexico state court, the safe guess (if you don’t know or can’t figure out anything else) is the choice that allows the court to apply New Mexico state court.

[Jodi]

" . . . allows the court to apply New Mexico state law," of course.

Oh, and I think the question sucks. It’s very muddy, an if you try to answer it affirmatively (picking a right answer) as opposed to negatively (eliminating the wrong answers), you pretty much have to assume facts not included in order to decide which answer is right.

[Jodi]

I don’t think the question is one of quasi in rem jurisdiction, or jurisdicton at all. The fact pattern does not reflect any jurisdictional concerns. And we can’t boil it down to an in rem/quasi in rem question unless we assume facts not given by the pattern, such as when the judgment attached.

[Enderw24]

I’m not following, Jodi. Why isn’t this a question of Erie? There’s a potential conflict between federal and state law and there’s diversity. Those are the two requirements, right?

The next question is whether there’s FRCP, FRAP, or a federal statute. I didn’t see anything like that in the problem and so it’s a federal judge made procedure. Apply the 2 part Erie Test.

1. Hanna: it’s outcome determinative. Just avoid inequitable administration of the law.
2. Byrd: also outcome determinative, balance the state and federal interests.

I still don’t actually know WHAT the answer is, but this is my best guess as to how to go about solving it.

[Jodi]

There’s a potential conflict between federal and state law and there’s diversity. Those are the two requirements, right?

Well, maybe I’m reading the question wrong. Where’s the conflict between state law and federal law? The federal issue deals with the establishment of liability (and the imposition of the resulting judgment), not the execution of the judgment. The fact pattern says deficiency actions are permitted under federal law, but no such action has taken place yet, so it can’t be res judicata. She executed, yes; but she never went back for a deficiency judgment in the federal court. The fact pattern provides such suits are allowed, but it doesn’t appear one took place. So where’s the conflict?

If she was trying to enforce an existing deficiency judgment, obtained from a federal court, then you’d have an actual conflict, not just a potential one. But if we recall that the (a) liability action; (b) execution of judgment; and © deficiency of judgment all require separate suits (under this fact pattern), then we don’t have a conflict of laws (or, for that matter, res judicata) because the actions we’re talking about are not the same.

IMO and if I’m reading it right.

[Jodi]

By the way, I am totally winging this, so it is more than possible – probable even – that I’m 100% wrong. But I don’t see an Erie conflict when the first time she tries to get a deficiency judgment, it’s in the state court. Just because the federal law allows such suits doesn’t IMO rise to the level of an Erie conflict of laws.