In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court provided guidance regarding the newly adopted Massachusetts Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (G. L. c. 218, § 4A) (the “Act”).
In Berg v. Ciampa, Case No. 20-P-1305 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 29, 2021), the Appeals Court considered whether the Act precludes a judgment creditor from domesticating a foreign judgment in a Massachusetts District Court and also seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment in a Massachusetts Superior Court. The Appeals Court concluded that it does not.
In Berg, two judgment creditors, who were residents of Connecticut and North Carolina, held a judgment issued by a Florida court against a resident of Massachusetts. The judgment creditors commenced a trustee process action in a Massachusetts Superior Court against the debtor and several financial institutions, which allegedly held funds of the debtor.
Several months later, after the Act was adopted by Massachusetts in April 2019, the creditors domesticated the judgment in Boston Municipal Court (“BMC”), as the Act permits the creditor to file a certified copy of a foreign judgment in the District Court (which includes BMC) where the debtor lives or works without commencing a separate action. See G. L. c. 218, § 4A(c).
The creditors then moved for summary judgment in the Superior Court action, and the debtor cross-moved to dismiss, arguing that the domestication of the judgment rendered the Superior Court action moot. The Superior Court judge granted the summary judgment motion and denied the motion to dismiss. The Appeals Court affirmed.
The Act provides that “a judgment creditor shall retain the right to bring an action to enforce a judgment instead of proceeding under [the act]”. Thus the debtor argued that the creditors had to choose between commencing an action in Superior Court or proceeding in District Court. The Appeals Court disagreed, finding that the term “instead of” is not so limiting. Rather, the court determined that there is no indication that the creditors were seeking a double recovery of the judgment as the “BMC filing alone does nothing to enforce the command for payment”, or duplicative writs of execution in order to harass the debtor.
Furthermore, the judgment could not be enforced against the financial institutions who were not parties to the judgment absent a separate trustee process or reach and apply action. Moreover, the Appeals Court reasoned that such an action would have to be commenced in the Superior Court given the $50,000 amount in controversy limitations of the District Court, as the judgment exceeded $200,000.
Accordingly, judgment creditors should be aware that while the Act has simplified the process of domesticating foreign judgments, a separate action to collect on the judgment is permissible and may likely be required.