WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik

• Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 13, 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Clerk of the Court for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion Number:_______________

3 Filing Date: December 13, 2023

4 No. A-1-CA-40004

5 WV 23 JUMPSTART, LLC,

6 Plaintiff-Appellant,

7 v.

8 TIGER W. MYNARCIK; JILL 9 MYNARCIK; ANTIQUA, LLC; and 10 TRADEWIND COMPANIES, LLC,

11 Defendants-Appellees.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 13 Francis J. Mathew, District Court Judge

14 Ferrance Law, P.C. 15 David A. Ferrance 16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellant

18 The Simons Firm, LLP 19 Thomas A. Simons, IV 20 Frieda Scott Simons 21 Santa Fe, NM

22 for Appellees 1 OPINION

2 BOGARDUS, Judge.

3 {1} Plaintiff WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC appeals the district court’s order granting

4 Defendants’ Tiger Mynarcik, Jill Mynarcik, Antiqua, LLC, and Tradewind

5 Companies, LLC’s (Defendants) motion for summary judgment and denying

6 Plaintiff’s counter-motion for summary judgment. The district court determined that

7 Plaintiff could not domesticate and enforce a California state court judgment against

8 Defendant Tiger Mynarcik in New Mexico because (1) the judgment was a

9 ministerial registration of a Nevada state court money judgment and thus not entitled

10 to full faith and credit in New Mexico; and (2) the original Nevada judgment was

11 expired and could not be registered in New Mexico. Plaintiff contends that the

12 district court erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the California judgment

13 because, under California law, registration of the Nevada judgment in California

14 state court rendered it an original California judgment, which is entitled to full faith

15 and credit in New Mexico. We agree with Plaintiff and reverse.

16 BACKGROUND

17 {2} In 2010, a Nevada state court entered a judgment (the Nevada judgment)

18 against Defendants for $1,584,893. The same year, Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest

19 registered the Nevada judgment in California (the California judgment), pursuant to

20 California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act (SSMJ). See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1 §§ 1710.10 to 1712 (West 1974, as amended 2023). Plaintiff was then assigned the

2 rights to collect on the judgment by its predecessor in interest in May 2020. In July

3 2020, Plaintiff renewed the California judgment in the Superior Court of California,

4 which extended the enforceability of the judgment in California for an additional ten

5 years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 683.110 to 683.220 (West 1982, as amended

6 through 2023).

7 {3} In November 2020, Plaintiff brought a common law action to domesticate and

8 enforce the California judgment in New Mexico district court. Plaintiff also sought

9 to void the 2017 transfer of property by Defendant Mynarcik to Defendant Antiqua,

10 LLC under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the Act). See NMSA 1978,

11 §§ 56-10-14 to -29 (2015). In response, Defendants filed two motions for summary

12 judgment. In the first motion, Defendants argued that the petition to domesticate the

13 foreign judgment was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Nevada

14 law for fraudulent transfers in accordance with the Act. The district court determined

15 that Defendant’s first motion was moot, but granted Defendant’s second motion,

16 concluding that the registration of the Nevada judgment in California was “not a

17 personal money judgment rendered by a court, [but] more akin to a writ of execution

18 issued as a ministerial action by the clerk” and thus not entitled to full faith and credit

2 1 in New Mexico courts. The district court also determined that the Nevada judgment

2 was expired and could not be registered in New Mexico. Plaintiff appeals.1

3 DISCUSSION

4 {4} The question before us is whether the California judgment is entitled to full

5 faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. As we

6 explain, we conclude that it is.

7 {5} When no material issues of fact are in dispute and an appeal presents only a

8 question of law, we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Cadle Co. v.

9 Seavall, 2019-NMCA-062, ¶ 6, 450 P.3d 471. Moreover, whether a sister state

10 judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico is a question of law that

11 we review de novo. See Williams v. Crutcher, 2013-NMCA-044, ¶ 9, 298 P.3d 1184

1 After the appeal was filed and all the briefing was complete, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim because the California judgment was preliminarily dismissed pending appeal in the California courts. Defendants sought dismissal without prejudice pending the outcome of the appeal. This Court held the motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the submission of the briefing and the motions to the panel. Before this case was submitted to this panel, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District filed an opinion reversing the lower court’s decision and determining that the registration and renewal of the Nevada judgment in California was valid and enforceable. See WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik, 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402, 412 (Ct. App. 2022) (California case resolving the appeal), review denied (Feb. 22, 2023), cert. denied, 2023 WL 6377900, (U.S. 2023) (mem). The California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Accordingly, Defendants’ request to dismiss the case without prejudice pending resolution of those appeals is moot. Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (stating that our appellate courts do not decide moot issues).

3 1 (stating that the interpretation of a foreign judgment is a question of law); see also

2 Pinghua Zhao v. Montoya, 2014-NMSC-025, ¶ 11, 329 P.3d 676 (“Questions of

3 statutory and constitutional interpretation are reviewed de novo.”).

4 {6} Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that “Full Faith

5 and Credit shall be given in each State to the . . . judicial Proceedings of every other

6 State.” In other words

7 the judgment of a [s]tate court which had jurisdiction of the parties and 8 the subject-matter in suit, shall be given in the courts of every other 9 [s]tate the same credit, validity and effect which it has in the [s]tate 10 where it was rendered, and be equally conclusive upon the merits; and 11 that only such defenses as would be good to a suit thereon in that [s]tate 12 can be relied on in the courts of any other [s]tate.

13 Roche v. McDonald, 275 U.S. 449, 451-52 (1928). New Mexico courts must give

14 the judgments of a sister state full faith and credit, “unless the judgment is void.”

15 Jordan v. Hall, 1993-NMCA-061, ¶ 5, 115 N.M. 775, 858 P.2d 863. New Mexico

16 courts determine the validity of foreign judgments based on the law of the foreign

17 jurisdiction. Rubin v. Rubin, 1995-NMCA-107, ¶ 7, 120 N.M. 592, 904 P.2d 41

18 (collecting cases supporting this principle); see also Willis v. Willis, 1986-NMSC-

19 035, ¶ 6, 104 N.M. 233, 719 P.2d 811 (“To escape the rule that a judgment of a sister

20 state is entitled to full faith and credit . . . we would have to hold that the judgment

21 is void and entitled to no standing even in the state in which it was rendered.”

22 (alternations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). However, “a state may

23 apply its own procedural rules [to the domestication of foreign judgments], including

4 1 statutes of limitations, to actions litigated in its courts without running afoul of the

2 Full Faith and Credit Clause.” Schmierer v. Tribal Tr., 2018-NMCA-058, ¶ 21, 427

3 P.3d 143.

4 {7} For New Mexico courts to “give full faith and credit to judgments of other

5 state courts,” the foreign judgment must be domesticated into a New Mexico

6 judgment. Walter E. Heller W., Inc. v. Ditto, 1998-NMCA-068, ¶¶ 4-5, 125 N.M.

7 226, 959 P.2d 560. This can be accomplished either by registering the foreign

8 judgment, pursuant to New Mexico’s Foreign Judgments Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 39-

9 4A-1 to -6 (1989, as amended through 1994), or by bringing a common law action

10 to enforce the judgment. Walter E. Heller W., Inc., 1998-NMCA-068, ¶ 4. Under the

11 Act, an authenticated foreign judgment may be filed with the clerk of the district

12 court and will have “the same effect and . . . may be enforced or satisfied in [a] like

13 manner” as an original New Mexico judgment. Section 39-4A-3(A); see id. (stating

14 that “the clerk shall treat” a foreign judgment as a New Mexico judgment). This is

15 true even though the registry of the foreign judgment under the Act by the clerk is

16 mandatory and thus could be considered ministerial. Wallbro v. Nolte, 2022-NMCA-

17 027, ¶ 20, 511 P.3d 348 (explaining that a ministerial act is an act, which a public

18 official must perform under the law as opposed to an act dictated by the official’s

19 own discretion), cert. granted (S-1-SC-38773, Apr. 19, 2022). Similarly,

20 successfully bringing a common law action requires state courts to treat foreign

5 1 judgments equal to New Mexico judgments. Galef v. Buena Vista Dairy, 1994-

2 NMCA-068, ¶¶ 4-5, 117 N.M. 701, 875 P.2d 1132 (stating that bringing a common

3 law action to domesticate a California judgment in New Mexico converted the

4 “California judgment into a separate New Mexico judgment”).

5 {8} Foreign judgments domesticated in California are also afforded the same force

6 and effect as original judgments in that state. California courts require a foreign

7 judgment to be domesticated before it is enforceable. Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA &

8 Ins. Servs., Inc., 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788, 792 (Ct. App. 2013). The same processes

9 allowed for domestication of a judgment in New Mexico, registration of the foreign

10 judgment with the clerk of the court or bringing an independent common law action,

11 are permitted in California. See id. at 792-93 (stating that the legislative purpose of

12 enacting the SSMJ was to provide a more economical and expeditious option for

13 enforcing a foreign judgment than bringing an independent action); Casey v. Hill,

14 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d 298, 320 (Ct. App. 2022) (stating that before the SSMJ, a judgment

15 creditor “was required to file an original action” to domesticate a judgment, but the

16 Act created “a simpler and more efficient method of enforcing sister state

17 judgments” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

18 {9} Although the registry of a foreign judgment under the SSMJ is ministerial,

19 Casey, 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 320 (stating that “entry by the clerk of a judgment based

20 upon the application is mandatory . . . , constituting a ministerial act of the clerk”),

6 1 a registration of a sister state judgment has “the same force and effect as a judgment

2 originally issued by a California court ‘and may be enforced or satisfied in like

3 manner.’” Id. (quoting § 1710.35). In other words, under California law,

4 domesticated foreign judgments, whether via independent action or registration

5 under the Act, are treated as original California judgments. Washoe Dev. Co. v.

6 Guar. Fed. Bank, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 479, 481 (Ct. App. 1996) (explaining that both

7 sister state judgments domesticated by independent action or by registration have

8 “the same effect as an original California money judgment”).

9 {10} Here, in order to determine whether the California judgment is entitled to full

10 faith and credit in New Mexico, we must first assess whether the California judgment

11 is valid under California law, see Rubin, 1995-NMCA-107, ¶ 7, and then determine

12 whether New Mexico procedural rules prohibit domestication of the judgment,

13 Schmierer, 2018-NMCA-058, ¶ 21. If New Mexico law would bar the action, then

14 we must determine if the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires recognition of the

15 judgment nonetheless. Id. Because, as we explain below, the California judgment is

16 valid and enforceable under New Mexico and California law and is not barred by

17 our statute of limitations, we conclude it must be given full faith and credit in New

18 Mexico.

19 {11} California law treats domesticated judgments the same as original judgments,

20 even if domestication was accomplished through a ministerial act such as

7 1 registration. Casey, 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 320. New Mexico courts also treat

2 domesticated judgments as original judgments, even if they were domesticated

3 through a ministerial act. Walter E. Heller W., Inc., 1998-NMCA-068, ¶¶ 4-5. As

4 such, foreign judgments registered in California are valid California judgments

5 under New Mexico and California law and New Mexico courts must give full faith

6 and credit to them so long as they meet the New Mexico procedural requirements.

7 See Schmierer, 2018-NMCA-058, ¶ 21 (explaining that a state’s obligation to

8 provide full faith and credit to another state’s judgments can be limited by procedural

9 rules including statutes of limitations). Here, the California judgment is a valid and

10 enforceable judgment in California and thus a valid and enforceable judgment in

11 New Mexico. See Rubin, 1995-NMCA-107, ¶ 7.

12 {12} We now turn to the question of whether New Mexico’s procedural limitations

13 to domesticating a valid foreign judgment prevent the domestication of the

14 California judgment. “In interpreting statutes, we seek to give effect to the

15 Legislature’s intent.” Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038, ¶ 13, 121

16 N.M. 764, 918 P.2d 350. In doing so, we look first to the plain language of the statute

17 because the “statute’s plain language is the most reliable indicator of legislative

18 intent.” Stennis v. City of Santa Fe, 2010-NMCA-108, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 92, 244 P.3d

19 787. Moreover, we presume that “[t]he Legislature knows how to include language

20 in a statute if it so desires,” State v. Greenwood, 2012-NMCA-017, ¶ 38, 271 P.3d

8 1 753 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and that a “change from the

2 prior statutory language” indicates an intentional change. State ex rel. Child., Youth

3 & Fams. Dep’t v. T.J., 1997-NMCA-021, ¶ 5, 123 N.M. 99, 934 P.2d 293; see also

4 Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. N.M. Tax’n & Revenue Dep’t, 2020-NMCA-011, ¶ 15,

5 456 P.3d 1085 (stating that a recent amendment in the language of the statute

6 elaborated on and helped clarify legislative intent).

7 {13} At the time Plaintiff sought to domesticate the California judgment, foreign

8 judgments could be domesticated if they were “brought within the applicable period

9 of limitation within that [foreign] jurisdiction, not to exceed fourteen years from the

10 date of the judgment.” NMSA 1978, § 37-1-2 (1983, amended 2021). There is no

11 word modifying judgment, and thus the plain language of the statute does not limit

12 the type of judgment to original judgments, but also is sufficiently broad to include

13 a renewal of a judgment such as this one.

14 {14} In 2021, the Legislature amended the statute to include the word “original”

15 before the word “judgment.” Compare § 37-1-2 (1983), with § 37-1-2 (2021). As

16 such, the amendment changes the language of the statute so that the statute of

17 limitations for domesticating a foreign judgment runs “from the date of the original

18 judgment upon which it is founded,” as opposed to the date of any judgment being

19 domesticated. Section 37-1-2. However, because the California judgment is treated

20 like an original judgment under California law, regardless of which version of the

9 1 statute applies, the applicable time frame is ten years, well within the fourteen-year

2 term provided by the statute. Moreover, the new statute does not apply to the current

3 case because it became effective after the case was filed. See Grygorwicz v. Trujillo,

4 2006-NMCA-089, ¶ 11, 140 N.M. 129, 140 P.3d 550. Therefore, New Mexico law

5 does not bar the domestication of the California registration judgment and New

6 Mexico courts must give it full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the

7 United States Constitution.

8 CONCLUSION

9 {15} We reverse the district court’s determination that the California registration

10 judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit in New Mexico, and remand this

11 matter to the district court on Plaintiff’s claim for enforcement to be decided on the

12 merits.

13 {16} IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 _____________________________ 15 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

16 WE CONCUR:

17 __________________________________ 18 GERALD E. BACA, Judge

19 ___________________________________ 20 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, 21 retired, Sitting by designation