Domestic Relations – Equitable Division & Alimony – Alabama Judgment — Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – Limited Appearance – Res Judicata – Constitutional – Full Faith & Credit

Listen to this article

Ware v. Ware (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-071-13, 15 pp.) (Donald W. Beatty, J.) (Costa M. Pleicones, J., concurring in the result only without separate opinion) Appealed from Berkeley County Family Court (Jocelyn B. Cate, J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. S.C. S. Ct.

Holding: Even though an Alabama trial court wrongly decided that it had personal jurisdiction over the respondent-wife, since she made a limited appearance through counsel to contest personal jurisdiction but then failed to appeal the trial court’s ruling, that ruling is res judicata and is entitled to full faith and credit from S.C. courts.

We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the family court’s denial of the petitioner-husband’s motion for relief from the family court’s equitable division and alimony award.

If the issue of personal jurisdiction has been litigated in and determined by a foreign court rendering judgment, the judgment is entitled to full faith and credit and cannot be collaterally attacked. If the foreign court made an erroneous determination of jurisdiction, such decision is grounds for reversal in the appellate court of that state.

We believe the Alabama court did not, in fact, have in personam jurisdiction over the wife under Alabama law. Although she was properly given service of process, it was not shown that she had sufficient contacts with Alabama to warrant the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over her, and both (1) proper service of process and (2) sufficient contacts are required to obtain in personam jurisdiction.

If the wife had made no appearance in Alabama, that court would have been without jurisdiction over any issue other than the parties’ divorce. However, the wife did present the jurisdictional issue to the Alabama court by virtue of her special appearance and representation by counsel. However, the wife failed to proceed on the merits. The Supreme Court of Alabama has held, “It is clear under Alabama’s Rules of Civil Procedure that when a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction and the trial court overrules the challenge, the issue of personal jurisdiction is preserved for appeal. However, the defendant must proceed with the case on the merits.” Leventhal v. Harrelson, 723 So. 2d 566, 570 (Ala. 1998).

“A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds in a collateral proceeding.” However, “by submitting to the jurisdiction of the court for the limited purpose of challenging jurisdiction, the defendant agrees to abide by that court’s determination on the issue of jurisdiction: That decision will be res judicata on that issue in any further proceedings.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982).

The wife did not challenge the Alabama court’s ruling beyond the trial court level. Since those findings are res judicata, the Alabama court’s ruling is entitled to full faith and credit. Thus, the family court in South Carolina should have granted the husband’s Rule 60(b) motion. As a result, the rulings on the property division, alimony, and attorney’s fees award will be vacated, an unfortunate result in light of the Alabama court’s apparently erroneous ruling as to personal jurisdiction, but one that is mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause due to the wife’s special appearance and subsequent failure to pursue her rights in this regard.

Reversed and remanded.