Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CX-96-361


State Inc., assignee of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
in its corporate capacity, as Liquidator of
Guaranty State Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Sumpter & Williams, et al.
Defendants,

Odell Sumpter,
Appellant.

Filed September 24, 1996
Affirmed
Harten, Judge


Hennepin County District Court
File No. FJ -95-13691

Valdis A. Silins, Peterson, Tews & Squires, P.A., 4800 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth St., Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Respondent)
Odell Sumpter, Jr., 4850 Oakland Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55417 (Appellant Pro Se)
Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
S Y L L A B U S

1.
Errors in the docketing of a foreign judgment do not render the underlying judgment void.

2.
Clerical docketing errors may be corrected pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01.

3.
A creditor may recover the full amount of the obligation from a debtor who is jointly and severally liable.



O P I N I O N
HARTEN, Judge

Appellant Odell Sumpter challenges the denial of his motion to vacate a federal judgment, arguing that clerical errors in docketing the judgment in Hennepin County district court rendered the federal judgment void. We affirm.


FACTS
Pursuant to a March 22, 1989 federal district court order, judgment was entered in the amount of $234,220.87 in favor of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) against appellant Odell Sumpter and Charles Williams jointly and severally, [1] for copartnership debts. A subsequent foreclosure sale produced a $170,000 credit against the judgment, but no partial satisfaction was filed reducing the amount of the judgment. FDIC later assigned its judgment creditor interest to respondent State, Inc. (State). As assignee, State entered a settlement agreement with Charles Williams releasing him from the judgment in exchange for $7,500.
On July 22, 1992, State filed a copy of the federal judgment in Hennepin County district court. State also filed affidavits identifying itself as the judgment creditor and Sumpter as the judgment debtor, and filed a copy of the FDIC assignment. The court administrator mailed Sumpter a notice of the filing of the foreign judgment; the notice, however, misidentified FDIC as the judgment creditor. On August 17, 1992, the federal judgment was docketed in the district court.
In July 1993, Sumpter and State entered an agreement to settle the judgment for $20,000. Sumpter paid State $15,000 and agreed to pay the remaining $5,000 by July 29, 1994; if Sumpter failed to make this last payment, however, the entire judgment would remain outstanding. Sumpter failed to pay the final $5,000 by the deadline.
In October 1995, Sumpter moved the Hennepin County district court to vacate the judgment and determine the actual amount owed to State. In November 1995, State filed a partial satisfaction of the judgment, which showed that $63,411.20 remained to be paid. The district court denied the motion to vacate, ruled that the judgment had been effectively docketed, and found that the amount of the judgment residue was $63,411.20 as of November 10, 1995. The district court also amended the judgment nunc pro tunc to list State as the judgment creditor. Sumpter now appeals the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment.

ISSUES
1.
Did the district court err in denying a motion to vacate the judgment because of docketing errors?

2.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in amending the judgment to show the proper judgment creditor and the amount owed?

3.
Did the district court err in determining the amount owed by the judgment debtor?



ANALYSIS
The facts of this case being undisputed, only questions of law are presented. Our standard of review is therefore de novo. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. 1989).
1. In the district court, Sumpter argued that the judgment should be vacated because the correct judgment creditor was not identified in the notice of the filing of the foreign judgment. The relevant provisions of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) are as follows:
A certified copy of any foreign judgment may be filed in the office of the court administrator of any district court of this state. The court administrator shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of any district court or the supreme court of this state * * *. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a district court or the supreme court of this state, and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.
Minn. Stat.

Download cx96361.pdf

Minnesota Law