ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell in Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was entered against Defendant for his failure to come to court or otherwise resist the lawsuit, despite the fact that he was not personally served with process, nor was a resident of Oregon. Later, in an attempt to collect upon his judgment, Mitchell attached land located in Oregon belonging to Defendant, and had it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a Sheriff’s sale.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Proceedings in a court of law to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has not jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law.
Issue. Can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to appear in court be sustained by default judgments where service of process is accomplished solely through publication (i.e. constructive service)?
Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property within the forum state owned by a non-resident?
Held. No. The personal judgment recovered in the state court of Oregon against Plaintiff was without validity, and the decision of the Court of Appeals overturning that judgment was affirmed.
When a suit is merely in personam (i.e. against a person), constructive service through publication upon a non-resident is ineffective.
No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory. However, a state may subject property within its boundaries to the payments of its citizens, even when the land is owned by a non-resident, without infringing upon the sovereignty of the state of residency of the landowner.
Since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned and their enforcement in the state resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law.View Full Point of Law