## Facts

- Janet L. Hodson was a Missouri resident and the president of Hodson Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc. (Hodson Auto), a Missouri business.
- Hodson’s husband handled the company’s day-to-day operations while Hodson worked offsite.
- Sentinel Acceptance, Ltd., L.P. (Sentinel) initiated arbitration proceedings in California against Hodson Auto and Hodson individually.
- Sentinel obtained an arbitration award of $16,052.11 against both Hodson Auto and Hodson.
- Sentinel filed the arbitration award in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, which entered a judgment confirming the award.
- Sentinel then filed an affidavit to register the California judgment in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri under Missouri’s foreign-judgment enforcement procedures.
- After registration, Sentinel sought collection in Missouri and requested issuance of garnishment to satisfy the registered judgment.
- Hodson learned of the Missouri garnishment after her bank notified her that a garnishment order had been issued.
- Hodson asserted she had not been personally served with information about the California arbitration and did not know it existed.
- Hodson claimed her husband retained California counsel for her without her knowledge; counsel appeared and responded in the California confirmation matter, but counsel confirmed he had contact only with Hodson’s husband, not Hodson.
- Hodson moved the Missouri circuit court to quash the registration (and related executions and garnishments), asserting the California judgment should not be enforced, including on a theory that the California proceedings were a “complete and total surprise” to her.
- The trial court granted Hodson relief and quashed the registration of the California judgment based on Missouri practice allowing a registered foreign judgment to be subject to reopening or vacation procedures similar to Missouri judgments.
- Sentinel appealed from the order quashing registration.

## Issues

1. May a Missouri circuit court quash registration of a sister-state judgment based on Missouri Rule 74.06(b)(1) (“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”) where the claimed “surprise” concerns the foreign arbitration and confirmation proceedings rather than the Missouri registration process?
2. Did Hodson carry her burden to establish a recognized defense that would permit Missouri to refuse full faith and credit to the California judgment (such as lack of personal jurisdiction or a due-process notice defect)?

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District held the trial court used an improper ground to quash registration of the California judgment.
- The court held that reliance on Rule 74.06(b)(1) “surprise,” based on alleged lack of knowledge of the California proceedings, did not justify refusing registration of a facially valid foreign judgment.
- The court held Hodson did not successfully litigate a proper basis for quashing registration of the foreign judgment.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded with directions to enter judgment registering the California judgment in Missouri.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri must give full faith and credit to a final sister-state judgment unless the resisting party proves a limited, recognized ground to deny enforcement (commonly, lack of personal jurisdiction or a fundamental due-process defect).
- Under Missouri’s foreign-judgment registration procedure, a properly filed foreign judgment is enforceable in Missouri similarly to a Missouri circuit court judgment, but that equivalence does not permit a broad collateral attack on the foreign judgment’s merits or foreign procedures.
- Rule 74.06(b)(1) relief for “surprise” is not a general tool to set aside registration of a foreign judgment when the alleged surprise relates to the out-of-state proceedings rather than events in the Missouri enforcement case.
- The judgment debtor bears the burden to plead and prove a valid defense to enforcement of the foreign judgment; allegations alone are insufficient when the trial court’s ruling is not grounded in a recognized defense.

## Conclusion

Sentinel Acceptance obtained a California judgment confirming an arbitration award and registered it in Missouri for collection, but the Missouri trial court quashed registration based on Hodson’s claimed “surprise” about the California proceedings; the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “surprise” under Missouri Rule 74.06(b)(1) was not a proper basis to refuse registration of a sister-state judgment and remanding for entry of a Missouri judgment registering the California judgment.


Sentinel Acceptance Ltd., L.P. v. Hodson Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 464 (2001)