Facts
- Campbell (plaintiff) provided substantial labor and materials to improve real property owned by Murdock (defendant).
- The improvements were made under a contract requiring Murdock to pay Campbell for the work.
- Campbell was not paid and filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to foreclose a lien against the Ohio land and also requested a personal judgment against Murdock for the unpaid debt.
- Campbell invoked diversity jurisdiction and relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1655, which permits actions affecting interests in property located within the district when the defendant cannot be served within the state.
- Murdock, a nonresident, entered a special appearance to contest the court’s jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the request for a personal judgment.
- Murdock also appeared to protect her interest in the property and moved for a more definite statement of the complaint so she could respond to the lien-foreclosure allegations.
Issues
- Does 28 U.S.C. § 1655 authorize a federal district court to enter an in personam money judgment against a nonresident defendant in an action brought to enforce a lien on land located within the district?
- When a nonresident defendant appears to defend her interest in the property, is she entitled to a more definite statement where the complaint is not specific enough to permit a meaningful response to the lien-enforcement claim?
Decision
- The court held that § 1655 permits the court to proceed against the property located in the district to determine interests in that property, but it does not supply authority to enter a personal money judgment against a nonresident defendant who has not been personally served.
- Murdock’s motion was granted to the extent the complaint sought an in personam judgment for the debt; the action could continue only as to enforcement of the lien against the land.
- The court granted Murdock’s motion for a more definite statement, requiring Campbell to plead the lien-enforcement basis with enough detail to allow Murdock to answer and defend her property interest.
Legal Principles
- 28 U.S.C. § 1655 authorizes in rem or quasi in rem adjudication of claims to, or liens upon, property located within the district when personal service on a defendant cannot be made within the state.
- Section 1655 does not, by itself, create personal jurisdiction sufficient to support an in personam money judgment against a nonresident defendant; a personal judgment requires personal service (or another valid basis for personal jurisdiction).
- A defendant who appears to contest or protect an interest in the property may seek a more definite statement when the complaint is too vague to permit a responsive pleading on the property-based claim.
Conclusion
Campbell could use § 1655 to proceed against Murdock’s Ohio land to enforce the claimed lien, but the statute did not permit the federal court to enter a personal money judgment against Murdock in the absence of personal jurisdiction; because the lien allegations were not stated with adequate specificity for Murdock to answer, the court required a more definite statement while allowing the action to continue only in rem against the property.