a.
Facts-
Mitchell was Neff’s lawyer. Mitchell sued Neff for unpaid legal bills. Mitchell
was in Oregon, Neff was in California. Because Mitchell could not find Neff,
Mitchell filed suit in Oregon and gave notice of suit by publishing in
newspaper. When Neff did not respond, default judgment was given to Mitchell.
After this, Neff attained land in Oregon. Mitchell exercised his judgment
against Neff’s land. The sheriffs sold it: money proceeds went to Mitchell,
actual land went to Pennoyer. When Neff found out Pennoyer was in possession of
the land, Neff sued Pennoyer
b.
Procedural
History- Neff sued Pennoyer, Pennoyer appealed
c.
Issue-
i.
Whether
judgment for money, against a non-resident who was not served valid
ii.
Was
it legal for Oregon to enter judgment against Neff without personal service of
process?
iii.
Did
Oregon have personal jurisdiction over Neff?
d.
Holding-
No, it is NOT legal for a State to enter judgment against a non-resident for an
action in personam
i.
Oregon
did NOT have personal jurisdiction over Neff
e.
Rule-
i.
Constructive service may be
effectual for proceedings in rem
(jurisdiction over property), but personal service of process is REQUIRED for
proceedings in personam (jurisdiction
over person).
f.
Rationale-
Mitchell was suing Neff personally, for money…thus requiring personal service,
NOT constructive service. This case was not in
rem because Neff acquired the land AFTER the judgment. Mitchell should have
“attached” the property to his suit.
i.
States
can exercise jurisdiction over persons within the State and property within the
State
ii.
People
may “attach” property to a suit if the defendant is out of the State
iii.
No
State can have jurisdiction over another State’s people or property—A state has
exclusive jurisdiction over their people and property
g.
Notes-
i.
Quasi in rem: If the suit is
purely in personam, State may exercise
jurisdiction over any land the D owns within the State
1.
Ex. A lives in
Illinois and B lives in Indiana; B owns property in Illinois. A wants to sue B
for an in personam claim. A can
“attach” B’s land to the suit and can file suit in Illinois for the value of
B’s land (which is in Illinois)
2.
Applies
to ANY property…not just real property
ii.
Grounds
for Jurisdiction
1.
Physical
presence
2.
In-state
property attachment
iii.
Why
do Ct’s limit their Jurisdiction to the State’s boundaries?
1.
In
order to avoid “fraudulent and oppressive” suits
iv.
Substitute
Service: When you do not serve the actual person in the suit…but rather someone
else such as the agent
v.
Publication
will not be enough for service for an in
personam suit
vi.
In
order for quasi in rem jurisdiction to be legitimate, the property must have
been attached at the start of the lawsuit, and before the judgment
h.
Full
Faith and Credit Clause of the Const
i.
Principle
requiring other States to give full effect to JUDGMENTS rendered in foreign
States,
ii.
EXCEPT
where the trial Ct did NOT have personal jurisdiction
i.
Transient
Jurisdiction: When D temporarily
enters the State, the State has transient
jurisdiction
i.
If
you fraudulently bring a D into the State, the State does NOT have jurisdiction
over the D
ii.
POLICY:
The Ct’s want people to try to negotiate first; suits are a last resort
No comments:
Post a Comment