## Facts

- Mark Gannon obtained an $18,000 default judgment against W.R. Britton in an Illinois circuit court action involving personal property interests tied to Britton and Roy (“Spike”) Gannon.
- Britton alleged Spike told him he was named only as a necessary defendant and promised that no judgment would be taken against him, inducing Britton not to appear or defend in Illinois.
- Mark Gannon later sued Britton in Oklahoma district court to enforce the Illinois judgment as a foreign judgment.
- Britton answered with a general denial and alleged that Mark was only a nominal plaintiff, that Spike was the real party in interest, and that Spike’s assurances fraudulently induced Britton’s nonappearance in Illinois.
- The Oklahoma trial court struck all allegations in Britton’s answer except the general denial, admitted authenticated Illinois records, excluded Britton’s evidence of the alleged fraud, and entered judgment enforcing the Illinois judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires enforcement of a sister-state judgment when the defendant alleges it was procured by extrinsic fraud and seeks to present evidence of that fraud.
2. Whether, in an action to enforce a foreign judgment, the defendant may collaterally attack the judgment for fraud in its procurement that is extrinsic to the merits, if such a defense would be available in the rendering state.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred by striking the extrinsic-fraud allegations and excluding evidence offered to prove that the Illinois default judgment was procured by extrinsic fraud.
- The court ruled that full faith and credit does not compel enforcement of a sister-state judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud and that the forum court has authority to hear and decide that defense.

## Legal Principles

- A forum state must give a sister-state judgment the same effect it would receive in the rendering state, but no greater effect.
- Full faith and credit does not require recognition of a sister-state judgment where the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or where the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
- In an action on a sister-state judgment, the defendant may impeach the judgment by alleging and attempting to prove fraud in procuring it that is extrinsic to the merits.
- Extrinsic fraud is conduct that prevents a party from having a fair opportunity to appear and be heard; it is distinct from intrinsic fraud occurring within the adjudication of the merits.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a defendant sued on a sister-state judgment must be permitted to present evidence that the judgment was procured by extrinsic fraud, because full faith and credit requires equal—not greater—effect than the judgment would receive in the rendering state and does not bar an extrinsic-fraud impeachment.


Britton v. Gannon, 285 P.2d 407 (Okla. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 886 (1955)