## Facts

- Rod J. Garrett d/b/a Best Auto Limited and Mark A. Thompson d/b/a Best Auto (collectively, Best Auto) operated a used-car business in Washington.
- In April 2008, Best Auto listed a Mini Cooper for sale on eBay, stating the car was in excellent condition, that certain panels had been repainted, and that Best Auto was not aware of any accident history.
- The eBay listing represented that Best Auto had driven the Mini Cooper several miles on the highway and stated that the vehicle could be shipped anywhere in North America.
- William and Julie Brown, Texas residents, saw the listing and contacted Best Auto to buy the car for $11,250.
- Best Auto communicated with the Browns in Texas by telephone, email, and fax to complete the transaction, obtain a wire transfer, and arrange shipment of the vehicle to Texas.
- The parties’ purchase contract included a forum-selection clause choosing Washington as the forum.
- After delivery, the Browns discovered the Mini Cooper required extensive mechanical repairs and contacted Best Auto to return the vehicle, but Best Auto refused to take it back.
- The parties discussed possible solutions, including an attempted auction of the vehicle at Best Auto’s suggestion, but the dispute was not resolved.
- When the title later arrived, the Browns learned Best Auto had driven the car only one mile, contrary to the eBay statement that Best Auto had driven it for several miles on the highway.
- The Browns sued Best Auto in Texas state court. Best Auto was properly served but did not appear, and the Texas court entered a default judgment for the Browns.
- The Browns filed the Texas judgment in Washington superior court under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) and obtained a writ of garnishment against Best Auto’s funds.
- Best Auto moved in Washington to vacate the Texas judgment and quash the garnishment, arguing Texas lacked personal jurisdiction and the forum-selection clause required suit in Washington.
- The Washington trial court granted Best Auto’s motion, vacated the Texas judgment, and quashed the writ; the Browns appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the Texas court have personal jurisdiction over Best Auto such that the Texas default judgment was entitled to enforcement in Washington under full faith and credit and the UEFJA?
2. Could Best Auto use the contract’s Washington forum-selection clause, after defaulting in Texas, as a basis in Washington to set aside or avoid enforcement of the Texas judgment?
3. Did Best Auto meet its burden in the Washington enforcement proceeding to show a jurisdictional defect that would justify vacating the filed foreign judgment and quashing garnishment?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed the superior court’s order vacating the Texas judgment and quashing the writ of garnishment.
- The court held that Texas had specific personal jurisdiction over Best Auto based on Best Auto’s purposeful contacts with Texas residents in completing the sale and shipping the vehicle to Texas.
- The court held that the Texas default judgment was entitled to full faith and credit and enforcement in Washington under the UEFJA because Best Auto did not establish a lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas.
- The court held that the forum-selection clause did not permit a collateral attack on the Texas judgment in Washington; any forum-selection-clause defense needed to be raised in the Texas action.
- The case was remanded with directions consistent with enforcing the Texas judgment in Washington.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign judgment filed under Washington’s UEFJA is generally treated like a Washington judgment and is presumed valid; the judgment debtor bears the burden to show a defect such as lack of personal jurisdiction in the rendering state.
- Specific personal jurisdiction may exist when an out-of-state seller directs commercial activity at forum residents, completes the transaction through direct communications with those residents, and delivers the product into the forum state, and the claims arise from that transaction.
- A forum-selection clause is ordinarily a contractual defense about where suit should proceed; it does not, by itself, eliminate a court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction where minimum contacts and due process are otherwise satisfied.
- A party that was served in the rendering-state action and chose not to appear generally cannot wait until enforcement in another state to raise defenses that could have been asserted in the original proceeding, including a forum-selection-clause objection.

## Conclusion

Brown v. Garrett held that Washington must enforce a Texas default judgment obtained by Texas buyers against a Washington used-car seller when the seller purposefully conducted the sale with Texas residents and shipped the vehicle to Texas, creating specific personal jurisdiction in Texas. The court also ruled that a Washington forum-selection clause could not be used in a later Washington enforcement action to undo the Texas judgment after the seller defaulted, so the superior court’s order vacating the judgment and quashing garnishment was reversed and the matter remanded for enforcement.


Brown v. Garrett, 306 P.3d 1014, 175 Wash. App. 357 (2013)