Willett v. Willett

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Willett v. Willett

532 S.W.2d 756, 259 Ark. 321, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 2069

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1976

Docket75-269

StatusPublished

This text of 532 S.W.2d 756 (Willett v. Willett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willett v. Willett, 532 S.W.2d 756, 259 Ark. 321, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 2069 (Ark. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The only question here is whether a money judgment entered in Illinois is entitled to full faith and credit in Arkansas. We affirm the trial court’s refusal to enforce the Illinois judgment.

In 1961 the appellant obtained a divorce in Illinois, where both parties were living. The decree ordered the appellee to pay child support and certain medical expenses. In 1969, after the appellee had moved to Arkansas, the appellant filed a petition in the Illinois case for judgment against the appellee in the amount of his arrearages. On July 16, 1969, the appellee received by mail, in Arkansas, notice that the appellant’s petition would be heard in Illinois on July 17. Upon the advice of an Arkansas attorney the appellee made no attempt to resist the petition. On July 17 the Illinois court entered judgment against the appellee for $8,760, with interest. In 1972 the appellant brought this action to enforce the Illinois judgment.

The trial court was right in refusing to recognize the judgment. Even though the Illinois court had continuing jurisdiction in the case, the appellee was entitled, as a matter of due process, to reasonable notice of the petition for judgment. Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 28 (rev. ed., 1968). The one day’s notice that was given cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently the Illinois judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit. Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (1946).

Affirmed.

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

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The only question here is whether a money judgment entered in Illinois is entitled to full faith and credit in Arkansas. We affirm the trial court’s refusal to enforce the Illinois judgment.

In 1961 the appellant obtained a divorce in Illinois, where both parties were living. The decree ordered the appellee to pay child support and certain medical expenses. In 1969, after the appellee had moved to Arkansas, the appellant filed a petition in the Illinois case for judgment against the appellee in the amount of his arrearages. On July 16, 1969, the appellee received by mail, in Arkansas, notice that the appellant’s petition would be heard in Illinois on July 17. Upon the advice of an Arkansas attorney the appellee made no attempt to resist the petition. On July 17 the Illinois court entered judgment against the appellee for $8,760, with interest. In 1972 the appellant brought this action to enforce the Illinois judgment.

The trial court was right in refusing to recognize the judgment. Even though the Illinois court had continuing jurisdiction in the case, the appellee was entitled, as a matter of due process, to reasonable notice of the petition for judgment. Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 28 (rev. ed., 1968). The one day’s notice that was given cannot be said to be reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently the Illinois judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit. Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (1946).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 S.W.2d 756, 259 Ark. 321, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 2069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-v-willett-ark-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack