Preview:

Kwongyuen Hangkee Company LTD.
Petitioner and Appellee
v.
Starr Fireworks, Inc., a/k/a Starr Fireworks

Respondent and Appellant

[2001 SD 113]
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of
The Second Judicial Circuit
Minnehaha County, South Dakota
Hon. William J. Srstka, Judge

Ronald A. Parsons, Jr.
Scott N. Heidepriem
of Johnson, Jeidepriem, Miner, Marlow and Janklow
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
and Marc W. Tobias
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Attorneys for petitioner and appellee

Erich K. Johnke
Timothy L. James of
James & Associates
Yankton, South Dakota
Attorneys for respondent and appellant

Argued on Briefs April 25, 2001
Opinion Filed 8/27/2001

#21674

MILLER, Chief Justice.
[¶1.] Starr Fireworks appeals the circuit court’s decision to recognize and enforce a Hong Kong judgment. We hold that the Hong Kong judgment is recognizable and enforceable under the doctrine of comity.
FACTS
[¶2.] Kwongyuen Hangkee Company, Limited, sued Starr Fireworks in the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance for failure to pay for shipments of fireworks sent from December 1991 through March 1992. Although the dispute arose while Hong Kong was a sovereign under the British Crown, Hangkee filed suit after Hong Kong had reverted to communist Chinese rule. Starr Fireworks retained counsel in Hong Kong to defend against the claim.
[¶3.] Before the hearing in the Hong Kong tribunal, the chief witness, Mr. Sam Lau, who was the director of Hangkee in Seattle, Washington and Starr’s sole contact with Hangkee, died in a murder/suicide. Without the testimony of Mr. Lau, who had extensive knowledge of the dispute between his company and Starr, the majority of the evidence the Hong Kong tribunal received was in the form of affidavits. Based on the affidavits, the Hong Kong tribunal awarded Hangkee $98,438.45 plus interest on June 14, 1999. Starr did not appeal this decision.
[¶4.] In April 2000, Hangkee attempted to enforce the Hong Kong judgment in South Dakota through a Petition for Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Starr’s motion to strike the petition was denied. The trial court decided to recognize and enforce the judgment in South Dakota based on the common-law doctrine of international comity. Starr appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 5.] This is a case of first impression in South Dakota. This Court has never considered whether to recognize and enforce a judgment obtained in a foreign nation. It presents a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.
DECISION

[¶6.] 1. The common-law doctrine of comity applies to foreign nation judgments.
[¶7.] This Court has long recognized the doctrine of comity in the area of sister state judgments. Knittle
v. Ellenbusch, 38 SD 22, 159 NW 893 (1916) (Nebraska bulk sale law); Emerson-Brantingham Imp. Co. v. Ainslie, 38 SD 472, 161 NW 1001 (1917) (Wyoming mortgage). In 1975, SDCL chapter 15-16A,

Download 782779.pdf

South Dakota Law