WPCq 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ 0d UB* %l U6r B) DC AM U*a B  Sv~Xv D3 0@ 0l 0D AO 0D D/% BT^!3|xR($ >D?D@AEBCDDEFGӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G<  9p`(Arial d  !  #d#  ##   YYY FILED#X December11,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.#AppellateCourtClerk   !  #d#  g$       ThisactionwasnotfiledpursuanttotheEnforcementofForeign0 JudgmentsAct,T.C.A.266101,etseq,butasanactiontoenforceajudgmentwhichrightispreservedinT.C.A.266107. !#d#  g$       SeeT.C.A.363701andDupuisv.Hand,814S.W.2d340(Tenn.1991).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   inion Geneva  inion Geneva $$$$'dxd("$    ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\\RA'\7ϫXXdd7R"%!A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION NANCYT.FRANCIS,   )C/ANO.03A019608CV00244      ) PlaintiffAppellant,  )COCKELAW      )v.      )HON.WILLIAMR.HOLT,JR.,      )JUDGEREBECCARUSSELLFRANCIS,  )      )VACATEDAND DefendantAppellee.  )REMANDEDCLYDEA.DUNN,Newport,forPlaintiffAppellant.ROYT.CAMPBELL,JR.,Newport,forDefendantAppellee.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.  ThisactionwasbroughttoenforceamonetaryjudgmentobtainedbyplaintiffinNorthCarolinaagainstthedefendant. &   כ  DefendantfiledamotiontodismissstatinginteraliathatthejudgmentwasobtainedwithoutjurisdictionoverdefendantinthestateofNorthCarolina,and becauseanactionforalienationofaffectionshasbeenabolishedbystatuteinTennesseeandisnolongerrecognizedinthisstate.   Withoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing,theTrialCourtdismissedtheactiononthegroundsthat theNorthCarolinaJudgmentiscontrarytopublicpolicyinTennessee...ThisCourtfindingthatthejudgmentinthestateofNorthCarolinawasbaseduponthetortofalienationofaffectionswhichhasbeenabolishedinthisstateandisthereforenotentitledtofullfaithandcreditinthecourtsofthisstate.   Plaintiffhasappealed,insistingthatherjudgmentisentitledtofullfaithandcreditundertheFederalConstitutionanddefendantinsiststhatsinceboththegeneralassemblyandtheTennesseeSupremeCourthasabolishedthecommonlawtortofalienationofaffections,thatasamatterofpublicpolicyajudgmentbasedonthetortofalienationofaffectionsfromasisterstateshouldnotbeenforcedinthecourtsofTennessee.  WhileTennesseecasesstatethata strongpublicpolicy createsanexceptiontotheenforcementunderthefullfaithandcreditclause,wehavebeencitednocasefromthisjurisdictionthathasrefusedtoenforceajudgmentofasisterstateonthatground.SeeFourSeasonsGardeningandLandscapingv.Crouch,688S.W.2d439(Tenn.App.1984).InCrouch,JudgeKochnotedthat themorewellreasonrule,embodiedintheRestatementSectionofConflictsofLaw,Section17(1969)isthatavalidjudgmentrenderedinonestateshouldberecognizedandenforcedinanotherstate,eventhoughthelatterstatesstrongpublicpolicywouldhaveprecludedrecoveryiftheactionhadbeenfiledoriginallyinthecourtsofthatstate .(Citationsomitted).  Sisterstateswhichhaveabolishedthiscauseofactionconsistentlygivefullfaithandcredittojudgmentsbasedonalienationofaffectionsactionsrenderedinotherstates.Seee.g.,Parkerv.Hoefer,142N.E.2d194(1967);Burdickv.Nicholson,680P.2d589.InBurdicktheNevadaSupremeCourtreasonedthattheactiontoenforcejudgmentwasanactiontoenforcepaymentofadebt.  InHotelRemadaofNevada,Inc.V.Thakkar,(Tenn.App.FiledinKnoxville,July25,1991,permissiontoappealdeniedbySupremeCourt,January6,1992),thiscourtgavefullfaithandcredittoajudgmentobtainedintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtinNevada,whichwasbaseduponagamblingcontract.InThakkardefendantreliedonT.C.A.2919101106,whichprovidesthatcontractsfoundedongamblingorwageringconsiderationsarevoid,proscribedcollectionofgamblingdebts,aswellasundercertaincircumstances,authorizewivesandcreditorstosueforrecoveryofgamblinglosses.Also,oneformofgambling,alottery,isspecificallyproscribedbytheStateConstitution,Art.2,5;however,weheldtheNevadajudgmentwasentitledtofullfaithandcreditundertheFederalConstitution.  WhilethereisacleardifferencebetweenthesubstantivelawsofTennesseeandNorthCarolina,therewasnoexpressionofapublicpolicybyeitherthelegislatureortheSupremeCourt,intheactorcaseabolishingthecauseofaction,proscribingtheenforcementofasisterstatesjudgmentbasedonthistort. '   ׀Causesofactionsoundingintortvarywidelyfromstatetostateastowhatactsconstituteacauseofactionandastoelementsofdamages.Accordingly,weconclude:themerefactthatthisjurisdictionhasabolishedthecauseofactionbaseduponalienationofaffectionsisnotabasistodenyfullfaithandcredittoajudgmentofasisterstatebaseduponthatcauseofaction.Seegenerally44ALR3,960,and31ALR4,706.  Aswehavenoted,thisactionistoenforceajudgmentofasisterstate,andnoanswerhavingbeenfiledorevidenceheard,weconcludethatitwasinappropriatetodismisstheactionasamatteroflaw.TheburdenisonplaintifftoproveshehasavalidNorthCarolinajudgment.Accordingly,wevacatetheorderofdismissalinallrespects,andremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Ifupontrial,thejudgmentisprovenandfoundtobeavalidjudgment,thenaswehavenoteditwouldbeentitledtofullfaithandcreditinthisjurisdiction.  Thecostsoftheappealareassessedtotheappellee,andthecauseremanded.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________̜CliffordE.Sanders,Sr.J.