I don’t think the mention of Erie in C necessarily disqualifies it. It could be just a reminder thst the federal court was applying Arizona state law, and that the full faith and credit clause requires New Mexico to recognize it. But I don’t know if that recognition extends to following Arizona’s rules concerning res judicata and enforcement proceedings here.
Totally winging it, but B. The NM court is required to give the same effect to the D. Az. judgment as if it had been issued in the same jurisdiction. It would make absolutely no sense if the judgment of the federal court in Arizona applied to everything except enforcement of the judgment.
But maybe I’m wrong. Homestead exemptions might be a great avenue of inquiry. If, for instance, the judgment creditor could seize the defendant’s home in Arizona, would that require the New Mexico courts to force the sale of the defendant’s homestead in NM, even though it would otherwise be exempt under NM law? Surely that question has arisen before, and it should provide an answer.
And let me further clarify (I’m pretty tired): I don’t see even a potential Erie conflict, because what basis is there for Erie in a state law case not jurisdictionally based on diversity, but rather on the fact the property is located there? (Come to think of it, this may be what GAD was talking about regarding the quasi in rem jurisdiction.) Beside, if we’re talking about imposing federal procedural standards on a state, wouldn’t we technically be talking about reverse-Erie anyway?
I could be totally off on all of this, since I haven’t dealt with an Erie question in a couple of years.
From the OP:
I took this to mean that the state court in one state doesn’t allow it but the federal court in another does. So if NM law transfers over when it goes to the district court, there is a conflict in law. If not, then I’m probably wrong. It clearly wouldn’t be the first time.
In fact, I can’t wait to get back my Civ Pro exam and see just how often I was wrong.
I see this, but it doesn’t IMO change the fact that the original action and the enforcement/deficiency action are two separate cases, and while one may factually give rise to the other, they are not the same and res judicata does not apply.
Also, to build off something Billbo said in his first post, res judicata requires the second court to give the same preclusive effect as the first. The first court would not have precluded a second enforcement action. Res ipsa loquitur, sua sponte, and stare decisis, the res judicata motion filed by D is meritless.
I don’t know what you mean here by “NM law transferring over when it goes to the district court.” Do you mean the U.S. district court? Because the fact pattern says the NM case was brought in NM *state[/i ] court, and the question (as I read it) is what law the NM state court will apply.
MINTY –
Why? If it had been issued in the same jurisdiction (i.e., state of NM), she still wouldn’t have a right to a deficiency judgment.
Why does this make no sense? Securing a judgment and enforcing a judgment are IMO different causes of action. If the latter is brought in NM state court, it is subject to NM law, in the absence of Erie or res judicata considerations.
Again, I think B is wrong because it is specifically based on the Supremacy Clause, which is not IMO implicated for two different types of causes of action.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhythmdvl *
Originally quoted by Rhythmdvl from Civil Procedure, Unclear Materials for a Confusing Subject
This quote raises the question of whether the N.M. rule unduly burdens the enforcement of the D.Ariz. judgment
I would say that it unquestionably places an undue burden on the enforcement of the out of state judgment. If the rule were to be given effect, and the enforcement action were to be dismissed, the judgment creditor would have NO forum in which to attach the New Mexico property. Because there is no original action in New Mexico for the enforcement proceeding to be ancillary to, no out of state judgment actions could be brought.
In the OP you mention that there were other facts in the hypothetical that were omitted from your summary. Among the omitted facts, was there anything that provided the basis for jurisdiction in the original federal action in Arizona. I think that this may be critical to the proper answer to the question.
If the original jurisdictional basis for the District of Arizona action was diversity, then answer C would be correct, because the Arizona federal court would have to follow Arizona state law under Erie and the Arizona federal judgement would have the preclusive effect of an Arizona state judgment. Under full faith and credit (which is a Constitutional doctrine, art. IV, sec. 1 – 28 USC 1738 is merely a statute describing how state records may be proved), the New Mexico court would have to give the judgment the res judicata effect that it would have in an Arizona court.
If the original jurisdictional basis for the District of Arizona action were federal question, answer B would be correct, because this action is for the enforcement of a federal law, which the New Mexico court must follow as a matter of federal supremacy.
So, my best legal answer is: It depends.
P.S. I definitely concur with my esteemed colleauge Jodi that: “Oh, and I think the question sucks.”
Sorry, the “issued in the same jurisdiction” bit was the wrong decription. Rather, the NM court is required to give the same effect as in the issuing court. The first collection action would have no effect on a subsequent one in the issuing court, so it would have none in the second court.
As for your second point, I would argue that the mere fact P is subject to personal jurisdiction (in rem and quasi in rem being archaic relics suitable only for use in 1st year Civ Pro classes) means that the defendant is on the hook no matter where he can be found. In personam jurisdicition means you’re boned, not just that you’re boned to the extent that you may happen to have property in the state.
Agreed that the Supremacy Clause is inapplicable. I like B because the result is correct, even if the specific authority cited is wrong. I don’t even see how the choice of law question that is the basis for A gets involved at all.
Still, I am curious about the homestead thing. Go forth, young law students, and employ the mighty tools of free Lexis and Westlaw until you have discovered your answer!
Also, under your position that liability and enforcement are two separate causes of action, what’s to stop NM from giving full faith & credit to the D. Az. liability judgment, but absolutely prohibiting out-of-state enforcement actions against property located in NM? Surely, FF&C would not tolerate such a meaningless enforcement of a sister state’s judgments?
Wow, a bunch of posts came in while I was composing my answer.
Jodi said:
I think this may be the crux of the problem. The problem states: “New Mexico law does not permit suits for judgment deficiencies (requiring all enforcement in one suit with no follow-up enforcement actions).”
So under New Mexico law, proceedings to enforce a judgment must be brought within the context of the original action to secure the judgment. There is no separate action to enforce a judgment of a New Mexico court, and all such proceedings are ancillary to the original suit.
However, if an out of state judgment is brought in to be enforced, New Mexico had damn well better provide a forum for the judgment to be enforced under full faith and credit (or some other Constitiutional doctrine). Because there is no original action for the enforcement action to be ancillary to, New Mexico must provide a forum for the enforcement of out of state judgments. Therefore answers A and E are incorrect. Answer D makes no sense, because there aren’t two judgments, unless you count the New Mexico judgment, which makes the question contra-factual.
So the answer must be either B or C.
Or what minty green said. 
Er, that should be “absolutely prohibiting enforcement actions against property located in NM based on out-of-state liability judgments.”
Wow… thanks for the responses. Aren’t you glad you’re done with law school? Aren’t you glad you didn’t have this professor? I’d say more, but as I said to Gadarene, this isn’t the pit.
The exam is tomorrow, so I have to get some sleep. It appears that the answer turns on whether or not the NM suit is a separate enforcement action, distinct from the first suit. The FF&C it has to give is the notion that it is a valid debt, just as if the AZ court ruled that there was a valid contract or tort claim. The res judicata comes into play via issue preclusion. In AZ, the issue is that Pilar did collect some money from Divine. No way to deny it, it has preclusive effect (and NM is bound to give it FF&C). Since NM has the ‘no multiple enforcement’ law, it seems that Divine is using the res effects of the AZ enforcement action as a complete defense. This is possible because different states have different homestead exemptions (if I am using that term correctly) and the Fed courts won’t interfere with that state package. Even throwing Eerie at it wouldn’t do any good, since the FRCP on point refers to the state’s law. If it did overrule the state package, than any homestead protection a state could offer a citizen would do no good against a different state’s judgment.
Anyway, again thanks for the responses. If it isn’t clear to you, the main thing I got out of this is piece of mind. Thanks, and wish Gadarene and I (and everyone else in our section!) luck tomorrow!
Rhythmdvl
Oof… posts came in as I was typing this.
Note that the NM law isn’t preventing enforcement suits, it is preventing deficiency suits. That is, it is specifically preventing the second enforcement suit. That is why I am still hung up on A, since it is giving preclusive effect to the AZ judgment. AZ would grant their first enforcement action res judicata, since if she stuck in AZ for the deficiency suit, she couldn’t sue for all 3.5 million, she would only be able to get the 3.1. Therefore, the first suit does have some preclusive effect. NM is applying that same effect and saying that it bars her from attaching NM property. Had Pilar not made the motion to enforce in AZ, she would have no problem going after the NM property, since it would be an enforcement suit, not a deficiency suit. Is there anything wrong with the above two paragraphs?
As far as background to the question, consider everything up to that point to be decided correctly. It was a diversity action, and each step of the way the questions start “whether rightly or wrongly, the judge XYZ” where XYZ is whatever was being considered in the last question.
Again, thank you very, very much. I love the SDMB~
Great discussion, everyone; thanks so much. For what it’s worth, my study group ended up vacillating between B and C, and finally choosing C–a question of whether NM would be following federal law or Arizona law interpreted by a federal court, and thus whether the Supremacy Clause or full faith and credit would best apply. I can explain our reasoning more tomorrow, but right now I should get back to studying.
So we’ve collectively decided it’s either A, B, C, or D.
That’s the worst $%&%@ question I’ve ever seen.
BILLDO –
And it does, albeit not clearly: Answer C provides "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. "
And I was reading the question wrong – I was trying to find (and not finding) an Erie issue in the NM court vis a vis the federal court, and not finding one. Of course, if I’d read “C” carefully I would have seen that the Erir consideration is in the first suit, the Arizona suit.
So my objections to Erie are withdrawn; I misread the question. Based on that and BILLDO’s analysis, I now choose “C.”
I still think “B” is out because I don’t see any Supremacy Clause application if we are talking about two distinct, independent causes of action, one to establish liability and secure judgment and the other to secure the deficiency. In that case, there’s no conflict of laws to trigger the Supremacy Clause. The rationale for honoring the Arizona judgment is FF&C, not Supremacy.
This has been interesting. Sorry I couldn’t provide any real in depth analysis on this but:
- I’ll willing to admit that out of all the people with even a smidgen of legal knowledge I’m the least qualified to actually weigh in on this.
- I’m even less qualified than that. See, we never actually discussed FF&C in Civ Pro II this semester. We did spend oodles of time on Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction so if you’ve got something there, lay it on me.
Good luck on your exam tomorrow. Or today.
Don’t sweat it, ENDER. Not to dis anybody’s education (which I would never do), but if your class is studying personal and subject matter jurisdiciton, you’re actually talking about stuff you’ll need to know and will commonly use in the real world.
Unlike, say, FF&C, which comes up relatively rarely in the unrarified air of actual practice.
Good luck on exams, peeps!
Sez you! I’ve got a FF&C case right now! Plaintiff stupidly sued on STOO in two states, opening up the possibility of collateral attack on a substantial jury verdict in the second state. First state’s rule is that there’s no res judicata effect until end of all appeals, while second state follows the usual rule that res judicata attaches to a trial court judgment. I think you can see where that’s going, huh?