Hargreaves v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino

357 S.E.2d 305, 182 Ga. App. 852, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2663
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 13, 1987
Docket74210
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 357 S.E.2d 305 (Hargreaves v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hargreaves v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 357 S.E.2d 305, 182 Ga. App. 852, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Greate Bay Hotel & Casino (Greate Bay) obtained a valid judgment against George Hargreaves in New Jersey in its suit to collect a gambling debt. Greate Bay then filed suit against Hargreaves in Georgia to domesticate the New Jersey judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Greate Bay, and Hargreaves appeals.

Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting judgment to Greate Bay as a matter of law because the underlying debt is a gambling debt, and it is against the public policy , of the State of Georgia to enforce such a debt. OCGA § 13-8-2 (a) (4). Although fully aware that gambling is against the public policy of Georgia, we note this is not a suit on the gambling debt itself, but rather a suit to domesticate a valid judgment of a sister state. It is undisputed that Hargreaves filed an answer and counterclaim in the New Jersey action, thus conferring valid jurisdiction on that court. Both the United States Supreme Court, Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230 (28 SC 641, 52 LE 1039) (1908), and the Georgia Supreme Court, Cannon v. Cannon, 244 Ga. 299 (260 SE2d 19) (1979), have held that full faith and credit must be accorded the valid judgment of another state, even though such a judgment could not have been obtained in our own courts because the underlying contract is void as against the state’s public policy. “A cause of action on a judgment is different from that upon which the judgment was entered. In a suit upon a money judgment for a civil cause of action the validity of the claim upon which it was founded is not open to inquiry, whatever its genesis.” Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U. S. 268, 275 (56 SC 229, 80 LE 220) (1935). We are therefore bound to affirm the decision of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur. *853 Decided May 13, 1987. John McGuigan, Jr., for appellant. Teresa M. Wright, for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holiday Casino, Inc. v. Breedwell
581 So. 2d 474 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)
Marina Associates v. Barton
563 N.E.2d 1110 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
Harrah's Club v. Mijalis
557 So. 2d 1142 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Boyer v. Korsunsky, Frank, Erickson Architects, Inc.
382 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Gower v. Hotel Ramada of Nevada (In Re Knight)
76 B.R. 857 (M.D. Georgia, 1987)
Strohecker v. Gwinnett County Police Department
357 S.E.2d 305 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 S.E.2d 305, 182 Ga. App. 852, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 2663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargreaves-v-greate-bay-hotel-casino-gactapp-1987.