Harris v. Balk - Case Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Notes...

Description

CIV PRO I Harris v. Balk 198 U.S. 215 (1905) Facts: - Harris borrowed $180.00 from Balk - Harris was a resident of North Carolina but was in Maryland on a business trip when he was served with a writ of garnishment issued by a Maryland court at the request of Epstein, who was a resident of Maryland - Epstein had a claim for over $300 against Balk - The writ garnished a debt for $180.00 that Harris owed Balk to partially satisfy the debt that Balk owed to Epstein - The Maryland Court issued a judgment under which Harris was to directly pay Epstein the money owed to Balk - Harris did not contest the Maryland proceedings and paid $180.00 to an attorney for Epstein - Harris was sued by Balk in North Carolina on the $180.00 debt - Harris defended his obligation was ended by his payment to Epstein - Balk argued that Maryland did not have jurisdiction because Harris was not a resident of Maryland and Balk did not have property there - The situs of debt was North Carolina where the loan was made What type of jurisdiction is Epstein attempting to exercise over Balk? - Harris owes money to Balk AND Balk owes money to Harris - This is quasi in rem because the debt attaches as a property - NC court says the MD court doesn’t have jurisdiction over Balk and NC court tells Balk he has to pay a second time o SCOTUS says there is intangible property and the person who owes the debt to another party - Res judicata—can’t sue a defendant multiple times Procedural History: - The North Carolina courts refused to recognize the payment of the Maryland judgment and granted Balk judgment against Harris for $180.00 o This court thought that the Maryland courts lacked personal jurisdiction because the res was located in North Carolina, where Harris and Balk resided - On appeal the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the lower court’s judgment - The Supreme Court held that North Carolina had to recognize the Maryland judgment o Disagreed with the North Carolina trial court stating that debt is not bound to one state. Debt clings to the debtor’s person and follows wherever they go Issue: - Does a state court have personal jurisdiction over debt between parties domiciled in another state, if attachment occurs while the debtor is temporarily present in the forum?

CIV PRO I

Holding/Reasoning: - A state court has personal jurisdiction over debt between parties domiciled in another state, if attachment occurs while the debtor is temporarily present in the forum. - When Harris was in Maryland his debt to Balk followed him o Maryland’s requirements for attachment were satisfied and therefore the Maryland Courts had attachment jurisdiction AND the Maryland judgment deserved full faith and credit - If Balk had lacked notice on the proceedings the judgment wouldn’t have applied to him; Balk had notice and never challenged the judgment in Maryland when the (Maryland) law permitted it o Harris’s payment of the judgment to Epstein satisfied the judgment to Balk, the Supreme Court of NC was reversed - Under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, A final, valid judgment from one state must be acknowledged an enforced in every other state BUT a judgment isn't entitled full faith and credit if the rendering court lacks personal jurisdiction - 3 Types of Personal Jurisdiction: o In personam: Authority to issue personal judgment against the parties o In-rem: Power to decide the rights of everyone on earth to specific property, called the res o Quasi in-rem (2 types)  1) Power to decide the rights of specific parties to the res  2) attachment jurisdiction plaintiff seeks pretrial order attaching the res  The res is (1) located in the forum; (2) owned by an out-of-state defendant; and (3) not connected to plaintiff’s claims - In this case Epstein sued to attach Harris’s debt to Balk o The debt was the res - Supreme Court determined that debt does not belong to one state and it follows the debtor everywhere they go Judgment: - Supreme Court of NC reversed...