ÿWPCíˆ Í|ëÊŠg=G#ÀØŠ“ý±xR[r:©g=G°IHÏÄPÚ¨åˆúé$ÚÿRÖz–jQÛ¡ý9EÄ9=g¥ÜVý £6Y³\;¡è[ûeïïpŽI6{ø¼>Ñ ˆ­¦Ë0ÔÆr±2ofp(†¬ç8 õš<$üüèÝÑ• Š£_º±‹„a/^ œì3¹{hµA¯¼èŸHþààrfv(h²Ÿpž§€¥=*ưYžÏ~Ÿ½¦ÓBGM)Ü8Ô„–ëáC#FAC#·DqýŽö–…¨#|¡ã Ðx«Þˆ÷ésÌö=±uÌjxû}ä’Ö?ŒŒl½®M(fQ\Ž„Â—%_ôþÏq8ðÒ>ñ>rZÉbÒäPp™I3¬¬ï¼è0Q¶ÁÔÝóRj™MÀ—á­ö9£§-•@oÚ—¸ƒ@-ްŸBܼQ‰¾#õEÇ1ä/"ĹÝQ{L†6¸+N_-E48G͉¼C!¯Jå*I¥¼‰–¬ÅD)VáM mUçá1Dyî(åŠ <è¶ gÄZ­ßTÀ²Ö™‹ùnõ¦{ÚëκÃOÙá×C6«CKþ „žZÓ ÌÂAž*1ö ¡¬¬Ô!;mp–p¿´kÖÐð|#ÉÈ %‘ ^ — 0ˆ£ U\N+ wy 4} z‘ Ò Ý ì mî NÆÆÍÆ“ÆY 0UNt 0Dv 0éºE£ 0æ¥ 0ã‹ 0àn 0ÝN 0Ú+ 0× 0ÔÜ 0C° 0×ó 0ÔÊ 0Ñž 0Îo 0Ë= 0È 0ÅÐ 0À• 0@U 0Ô• 0Ñi 0Î:! 0Ë" 0ÈÓ" 0Å›#b`$ 0Âh$ 0½*% 00ç% 0<& 0¾S& 0>' 0vO' 0`Å' 0`%( 0`…( 0`å( 0`E) 08¥) 0ÒÝ) 02¯* 0üá* 0:Ý+ 0Y, 0_p, 0 Ï, 0jÙ- 0„C/ B*Ç0 D/ñ0 0„ 1 D/¤2 0ÎÓ2 06¡3 0×3 0:ß4 0^5 0<w5 1e³5 1u6U66 0ëÃ6 72®7U >à7U*8 BH8U@e8 0¤¥8 D5I9 D-~9 0K«9ðö9 ASæ<Æ9= 0¤ÿ= 0D£> A«ç>ß’?TqAqAôÅDâ¹Hç›Lå‚MwgOUNÞ]ª,^+Ö_ÒaåÓaí¸c ¥e˜°iä HmH,{ 0ct}t}Ò×}©Ü«…«…«…f‡†˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»8zr1 (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular„‚–0˜Cê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt"|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€F(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dE)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€H(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓE)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡Q<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô !"#$% ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)<þ6X9`(‹Courier New(|G2/$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔPi)ô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial d&Öd9 Z‹(Times New Roman (|3Çz$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó æÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡WôäòòôäÔA€Memorandum€and€Order€of€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Southern€District€of€Texas€states€thatÐ ° Ðthe€case€was€removed€to€federal€court€in€December€of€1988,€that€it€was€remanded€to€state€court€in€September€of€1990,Ð tÄ Ðand€that€it€was€removed€again€in€January€of€1992.€After€the€second€removal,€the€FDIC€filed€a€motion,€which€was€granted,Ð 8ˆ Ðto€dismiss€nine€of€the€fifteen€individual€defendants€from€the€case€because€they€had€placed€themselves€under€the€protectionÐ üL Ðof€the€United€States€Bankruptcy€Court.€^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çz$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L=»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK ÕÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€addition€to€this€action,€on€December€14,€1999,€Tareco€filed€an€action€in€the€United€States€District€Court€forÐ ° Ðthe€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€to€enforce€and€collect€the€1993€Texas€judgment,€having€begun€federal€collection€effortsÐ tÄ Ðin€October.€òò€Tareco€Properties€v.€Steve€Morrissóó,€No.€3:99„1160. JÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSome€of€those€entities€had€virtually€identical€names,€including€First€Center,€Inc.,€a€Texas€corporation,€CenterÐ ° ÐFirst€Capital,€Inc.,€a€Texas€corporation,€First€Center€Financial,€a€Texas€corporation,€First€Center€Aviation,€Inc.,€a€TexasÐ tÄ Ðcorporation,€First€Center€of€San€Antonio,€Inc.,€a€Texas€corporation,€First€Center€Development,€L.P.,€a€Tennessee€limitedÐ 8ˆ Ðpartnership,€First€Center€Project€Management,€L.L.C.,€a€Tennessee€limited€liability€company,€First€Center€Group,€Inc.,Ð üL Ða€Tennessee€Corporation,€First€Group,€Inc.,€a€Tennessee€corporation,€and€First€Center€Financial€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€aÐ À ÐTennessee€corporation. êÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAdditionally,€Tennessee€follows€the€rule€that€it€will€not€enforce€a€foreign€judgment€when€to€do€so€wouldÐ ° Ðviolate€a€strong€public€policy€of€this€state.€€òòBiogen€Distributorsóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€256;€òòFour€Seasons€Gardeningóó,€688Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€442;€òòIn€re€Riggsóó,€612€S.W.2d€at€469.€€However,€the€only€case€we€have€found€where€the€public€policy€ofÐ 8ˆ ÐTennessee€was€invoked€to€deny€enforcement€of€a€foreign€judgment€was€òòIn€re€Riggsóó,€which€involved€a€Georgia€adoptionÐ üL Ðorder€entered€without€any€notice€or€service€of€process€on€the€biological€father.€€The€public€policy€at€stake€was€theÐ À Ðprotection€of€the€parent„child€relationship.€€We€can€find€no€strong€public€policy€of€this€state€that€would€be€implicatedÐ „Ô Ðin€an€attempt€to€enforce€a€judgment€on€a€debt. ØÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡jôäòòôäÔThis€assertion€was€based€on€a€theory€that€Tareco€and€another€entity€were€formed€for€the€sole€purpose€of€buyingÐ ° Ðand€enforcing€judgments€against€Mr.€Morriss,€including€the€1993€Texas€judgment€against€Gold€Park€Development€andÐ tÄ Ðits€partners.€€Mr.€Morris€alleged€that€the€California€attorneys€that€he€had€originally€hired€to€work€out€these€debts,€andÐ 8ˆ Ðwho€later€participated€in€several€projects€with€Mr.€Morriss,€informed€another€attorney€of€the€judgments€against€him.€€HeÐ üL Ðalleges€this€third€attorney€(and€others)€formed€Tareco€and€purchased€the€subject€judgment€after€Mr.€Ô_ÔMorrissÔ_Ôððs€initiationÐ À Ðof€litigation€against€his€former€attorneys,€investors,€and€partners.€Ô#†ôäòòjôä~#Ô ÝÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€record€constitutes€several€volumes€of€the€twenty„two€volume€technical€record€in€this€case. ÛÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSpecifically,€the€court€stated€the€materials€supporting€the€motion€included€ð ða€28„page€supporting€brief€withÐ ° Ð21€pages€of€attachments,€nearly€500€pages€of€deposition€transcripts€and€exhibits,€22€pleadings€(more€than€100€pages)Ð tÄ Ðfrom€the€Texas€action,€and€two€more€affidavits€with€a€total€of€27€exhibits.ðð mÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€correct€standard€of€review€requires€some€discussion.€€Ô‡jôäòòôäÔThe€trial€courtððs€final€order€granted€Mr.€MorrissððsÐ ° Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment.€€A€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€enjoys€no€presumption€ofÐ tÄ Ðcorrectness€on€appeal.€€òòScott€v.€Ashland€Healthcare€Ctr.,€Inc.óó,€49€S.W.3d€281,€284€(Tenn.€2001);€òòÔ_ÔPenleyÔ_Ô€v.€Honda€MotorÐ 8ˆ ÐCo.óó,€31€S.W.3d€181,€183€(Tenn.€2000).€€This€courtððs€role€in€review€of€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€to€review€theÐ üL Ðrecord€and€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòStaplesóóÔ#†ôäòòjôä¹#Ô€òòv.€Ô_ÔCBLÔ_Ô€&€Associatesóó,òò€Inc.óó,Ð À Ð15€S.W.3d€83,€88€(Tenn.€2000).€€Those€Ô‡jôäòòôäÔrequirements€are€that€the€filings€supporting€the€motion€show€that€there€is€noÐ „Ô Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ô#†ôäòòjôäø#ÔÔ‡jôäòòôäÔTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04;Ð H ˜ ÐòòÔ_ÔFrugeÔ_Ô€v.€Doeóó,€952€S.W.2d€408,€410€(Tenn.€1997);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210.òòóó€€The€€question€presented€wasÐ  \ Ðwhether€Mr.€Morriss€was€entitled€to€relief€from€the€Texas€1993€judgment.€€That€issue€is€decided€under€procedures€andÐ Ð  Ðgrounds€established€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€Ô#†ôäòòjôä#ÔThis€courtððs€review€of€a€decision€to€grant€or€deny€relief€under€Tenn.€R.Ð ” ä  ÐCiv.€P.€60€is€limited€to€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion.€€òòFederated€Ins.€Co.€€v.€Ô_ÔLethcoeÔ_Ôóó,€18€S.W.3d€621,€624Ð X ¨  Ð(Tenn.€2000);€òòUnderwood€v.€Zurich€Ins.€Co.óó,€854€S.W.2d€94,€97€(Tenn.€1993);€òòEllison€v.€Alleyóó,€902€S.W.2d€415,€418Ð  l  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Ô‡jôäòòôäÔA€trial€court€abuses€its€discretion€when€it€applies€an€incorrect€legal€standard.€€òòÔ_ÔEldridgeÔ_Ô€v.Ð à 0  ÐÔ_ÔEldridgeÔ_Ôóó,€42€S.W.3d€82,€85€(Tenn.€2001).€Ô#†ôäòòjôäž#ÔÔ‡jôäòòôäÔOn€the€other€hand,€another€way€to€state€the€issue€before€the€court€was€whetherÐ ¤ô  ÐtheÔ#†ôäòòjôäÁ #Ô€1993€Texas€judgment€was€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit.€€That€is€a€question€of€law,€reviewed€òòde€novoóó.€€Similarly,Ð h¸  Ðthe€question€of€whether€collateral€estoppel€applies€is€a€question€of€lawÔ‡jôäòòôäÔ,€as€is€the€question€of€whether€a€prior€judgmentÐ ,|  Ðhas€òòres€judicata€óóeffect.€€Ô#†ôäòòjôäA #ÔòòSee€Morrisóó,€832€S.W.2d€at€566.Ô‡jôäòòôäÔ€€We€have€determined€that€Tareco€was€not€collaterally€estoppedÐ ð@  Ðfrom€litigating€the€issue€of€whether€the€1993€Texas€judgment€was€void€and€that€the€trial€court€was€required€to€afford€fullÐ ´  Ðfaith€and€credit€to€that€judgment€under€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó.€€Ô#†ôäòòjôä #ÔÔ‡jôäòòôäÔ€€Ô#†ôäòòjôä} #ÔThese€decisions€on€the€underlying€questions€of€lawÐ xÈ  V Ðlead€to€the€conclusion€that€Mr.€Morriss€was€not€entitled€to€summary€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€not€clear€from€the€record€before€us€that€the€trial€court€was€ever€informed€of€this€filing€in€the€court€whoseÐ ° Ðjudgment€was€being€attacked€before€the€Tennessee€court€entered€its€August€1,€2001€order€ruling€on€the€enforceabilityÐ tÄ Ðof€that€judgment. !Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€also€noted€that€Mr.€Morriss€had€appealed€the€decision€of€the€district€court.€€At€this€time,€theÐ ° Ðappellate€court€had€not€ruled. ÈÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€order,€however,€contains€no€language€finding€the€Texas€judgment€void. ÛÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€court€accepted€the€magistrate€judgeððs€recommendation€that€the€motion€be€denied€after€Mr.€MorrissÐ ° Ðobjected€to€the€magistrateððs€report€and€recommendation.€€The€magistrate€judgeððs€report€includes€an€exhaustive€reviewÐ tÄ Ðof€the€record€from€the€1993€Texas€judgment€and€a€thorough€analysis€of€the€issues. ãÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhile€Mr.€Morriss€most€frequently€refers€to€the€time€he€retained€these€lawyers€as€ð ðin€or€aroundðð€1993,€he€also€Ð ° Ðstated€that€he€hired€this€firm€ð ðbeginning€as€early€as€1992"€to€represent€him€in€various€capacities.€€In€testimony€in€federalÐ tÄ Ðcourt,€he€testified€he€first€started€dealing€with€the€law€firm€in€1991. Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€rejecting€another€argument€made€by€Tareco€based€on€language€in€the€federal€courtððs€decision€upholdingÐ ° Ðthe€1993€Texas€judgment,€the€court€also€held€that€under€Texas€law,€a€judgment€against€a€partnership€can€be€enforcedÐ tÄ Ðagainst€a€partner€only€if€a€judgment€against€the€partner€is€also€entered€in€the€same€case.€€The€court€found€no€validÐ 8ˆ Ðjudgment€had€been€entered€against€Mr.€Morriss€because€of€the€failure€to€serve€him.€€ð ðWhile€process€was€served€on€Mr.Ð üL ÐMorriss€in€the€Texas€state€court€litigation€prior€to€its€removal€to€the€federal€court,€the€notice€of€removal€„€tantamount€toÐ À Ðthe€service€of€process€necessary€to€bring€Mr.€Morriss€within€the€personal€jurisdiction€of€the€federal€court€consistent€withÐ „Ô Ðthe€requirements€of€due€process€„€was€not€served€on€Mr.€Morriss.ðð ŽÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡WôäòòôäÔWhen€an€authenticated€judgment€that€was€rendered€in€a€foreign€state€is€presented€to€a€court€of€this€state€forÐ ° Ðenforcement,€the€Tennessee€court€may€not€go€behind€the€judgment€and€review€the€merits€of€the€underlying€dispute.€€òòHart,Ð tÄ Ðóó10€S.W.3d€at€269òò;€Remington€Investments,óó€1€S.W.3d€at€669;€òòBenham€v.€Fisher,óó€650€S.W.2d€759,€760€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð 8ˆ Ð1983).€Ô#†ôäòòWôä#Ô€Mr.€Morriss€did€not€seek€to€Ô_ÔrelitigateÔ_Ô€the€merits€underlying€the€judgment.€€To€the€contrary,€as€the€federal€courtsÐ üL Ðpointed€out,€he€has€not€even€made€a€factual€claim€that€he€has€a€meritorious€defense€to€the€judgment€should€it€be€reopened. Ú Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€collection€suit€filed€by€Tareco€in€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee,€Mr.Ð ° ÐMorris€originally€sought€to€prevent€Tareco€from€enforcing€the€1993€Texas€judgment€on€the€same€basis€as€that€allegedÐ tÄ Ðin€his€initial€filings€in€the€state€court€action,€òòi.e.,óó€that€Tareco€conspired€with€his€former€attorneys€to€make€it€financiallyÐ 8ˆ Ðimpossible€for€him€to€pursue€litigation.€€In€the€course€of€the€federal€action€Mr.€Morriss€provided€live€testimony€beforeÐ üL Ðthe€district€court€as€well€as€affidavits€and€other€sworn€testimony,€primarily€relating€to€transfers€and€ownership€of€assets.€Ð À ÐHis€testimony€resulted€in€his€counsel€striking€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion€for€relief,€filing€corrected€testimony,€and€withdrawingÐ „Ô Ðfrom€representation€of€Mr.€Morris.€€It€also€resulted€in€the€district€court€judge€referring€Mr.€Morriss€to€the€United€StatesÐ H ˜ ÐAttorney€for€possible€prosecution€for€perjury.Ð  \ ÐÐ Ð   Ðà  àWith€new€counsel,€in€apparent€abandonment€of€his€conspiracy€theory,€and€in€response€to€motions€by€TarecoÐ ° Ðto€sell€certain€of€his€assets€and€for€contempt,€Mr.€Morriss€entered€into€an€agreed€order,€entered€July€14,€2000,€to€transferÐ tÄ Ðcertain€of€his€assets€to€Tareco€for€a€$100,000€credit€in€partial€satisfaction€of€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€The€new€counselÐ 8ˆ Ðsubsequently€also€withdrew.€€Almost€a€year€after€the€agreed€order€was€entered,€with€new€counsel€again,€Mr.€Morriss€filedÐ üL Ða€Rule€60€motion€in€the€Tennessee€federal€court€action€seeking€to€set€aside€the€agreed€order€on€the€basis€of€mistake,Ð À Ðinadvertence,€surprise,€or€excusable€neglect.€€Essentially,€he€asserted€that€the€agreed€order€was€a€mistake€because€theÐ „Ô Ð1993€Texas€judgment€was€void€because€he€had€not€been€served€with€notice€of€removal€and€the€FDICððs€motion€forÐ H ˜ Ðsummary€judgment.€€By€order€entered€July€31,€2001,€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€TennesseeÐ  \ Ðdenied€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion.€€He€appealed€that€denial,€and€the€Sixth€Circuit€affirmed€the€trial€court.€€òòTareco€Properties,Ð Ð  ÐInc.€v.€Morriss,óó€321€F.3d€545€(6th€Circuit€2003).Ð ” ä  ÐÌà  àIn€his€appeal,€Mr.€Morrissððs€argument€was€that€the€1993€Texas€judgment€was€void.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€held€that,Ð  l  Ðeven€if€that€claim€were€true,€Mr.€Morris€had€been€aware€of€the€service€deficiencies€he€now€claimed€at€the€time€he€enteredÐ à 0  Ðinto€the€agreed€order€.€€Therefore,€he€could€have€litigated€those€issues€before€agreeing€to€the€order,€and€a€strategic€errorÐ ¤ô  Ðdoes€not€constitute€grounds€for€relief€from€judgment€under€Rule€60.€€òòId.óó,€321€F.3d€at€549.€€Further,€the€court€noted€thatÐ h¸  Ðthe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Southern€District€of€Texas€had€recently€rejected€Mr.€Morrissððs€lack€of€serviceÐ ,|  Ðchallenges€to€the€1993€Texas€judgment,€and€the€fact€that€he€had€appealed€that€decision€did€not€bring€his€claim€within€theÐ ð@  ÐRule€60€provision€for€relief€where€a€prior€judgment€has€been€reversed€or€is€otherwise€vacated.€òò€Idóó.Ð ´  Ð >Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€mentioned€earlier,€it€is€not€apparent€that€either€party€informed€the€trial€court€herein€of€the€pendency€of€theÐ ° Ðseparate€proceeding€in€Texas€on€the€same€question€that€he€was€asked€to€consider.€€With€such€notice,€the€court€could€haveÐ tÄ Ðdeferred€action€on€the€Rule€60€motion€before€it,€pending€the€decision€of€the€court€that€had€rendered€the€judgment€beingÐ 8ˆ Ðchallenged.Ð üL Ð(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à  COA P.J.KonvalinkaTesoroL.L.C.Tenn.R.Civ.P.perjuriousF.D.I.C. enforceabilityFennercolorable suaspontePetroleos D]ueMorrissey L.EdMerrimanthat thatestopsinteraliaestoppedCoastcomCruzenGraybarObenaufBenhamTerrazasPearcyAhernBlountSammons CrimHerreraDraulicsNorvellLeiningerestopMullane S.CtCovellF.SupppostjudgmentCorlissGeringerTarecoCrockettMorriss øÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€In€his€appeal€of€the€decision€of€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€denying€hisÐ ° Ðmotion€for€relief€from€the€agreed€order€to€partially€satisfy€the€1993€Texas€judgment,€Mr.€Morriss€asked€to€be€allowedÐ tÄ Ðto€supplement€the€record€with€copies€of€the€orders€of€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€County€denying€full€faith€andÐ 8ˆ Ðcredit€to€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€The€Sixth€Circuit€denied€that€motion€because€the€resolution€of€the€issue€on€appealÐ üL Ðwas€not€impacted€by€the€Tennessee€state€court€orders.€€Additionally,€the€court€stated,€ð ðFurthermore,€the€Tennessee€stateÐ À Ðcourt€orders€do€not€ððreverse€or€otherwise€vacateðð€the€1993€judgment€from€the€Texas€federal€court€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòTarecoÐ „Ô ÐProperties,€Inc.€v.€Morrissóó,€321€F.3d€at€òòóó449„50. ÒÝ ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Morrissððs€original€counsel€in€this€action€was€granted€permission€to€withdraw. \Ý ƒR/$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôäò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAfter€a€hearing€on€July€9,€2001,€the€trial€court€dismissed€two€of€the€grounds€asserted€by€Mr.€Morriss.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€the€trial€court€stayed€proceedings,€including€ruling€on€the€motion,€to€allow€counsel€to€obtain€the€record€fromÐ tÄ Ðthe€action€resulting€in€the€1993€Texas€judgment€because€Tareco€had€asserted€that€Mr.€Morriss€was€represented€by€counselÐ 8ˆ Ðthroughout€the€proceedings€and€Mr.€Morriss€had€denied€such€representation.Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€L=»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼L=»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îK¼î»¼L=ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼L=»îîK¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€November€7,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼L=ÔÌò òÔ#†¼L=»XX#ÔTARECO€PROPERTIES,€INC.€v.€STEVE€MORRISSÔ‡XX»¼L=Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„26593€€€€€€R.€E.€Lee€Davies,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02950„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€18,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡WXXXXÔThe€assignee€of€a€judgment€rendered€by€a€federal€district€court€in€Texas€attempted€to€enforce€thatÐ xÈ  Ðjudgment€in€Tennessee.€The€trial€court€entered€an€order€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffÐ d´ Ðand€enforcing€the€judgment.€The€defendant€subsequently€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€motion€for€relief,Ð P  Ðarguing€that€the€judgment€of€the€federal€court€was€void.€€The€trial€court€agreed€and€set€aside€itsÐ <Œ Ðprevious€order.€€After€the€Texas€federal€court€that€had€rendered€the€original€judgment€reached€theÐ (x Ðopposite€conclusion,€the€plaintiff€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60€motion€asking€the€trial€court€to€set€asideÐ d Ðits€earlier€order€setting€aside€the€summary€judgment€enforcing€the€Texas€judgment.€€The€trial€courtÐ P Ðdenied€this€motion.€€By€final€order,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€plaintiffððs€action€to€enforce€theÐ ì< ÐTexas€judgment.€€We€reverse€the€trial€court€on€this€issue€and€also€vacate€the€order€of€expungementÐ Ø( Ðgranted€to€Mr.€Morriss€related€to€a€holding€of€criminal€contempt.Ð Ä ÐÔ#†XXXWXÄ#ÔÔ#†¼L=»XXn#ÔÔ‡XX»¼L=ÔÓ¸ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€theÐ œì ÐChancery€Court€Reversed€in€Part€and€Vacated€in€Partó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼L=»àX¾ #ÔÔ‡XX.¼L=ÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€P.J.,Ð `° ÐM.S.,óó€and€òòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌJeffrey€A.€Greene,€Daniel€W.€Small,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Tareco€Properties,€Inc.Ð $"t! ÐÌJohn€Konvalinka,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee;€Roger€Reid€Street,€Jr.,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ ü#L# Ðappellee,€Steve€Morriss.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓ‹ ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼L=»XXº #ÔÔ‡XX»¼L=ÔÐ À&"& ÐÌÔ#†¼L=»XXû #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XX»¼L=Ôà@ ìàò òòòI.€€Proceedings€In€Texasó󀄀òòThe€JudgmentóóˆÐ ˜(è#( Ðó óÌà  àThis€case€began€with€a€complaint€filed€in€1987€by€the€Tesoro€Savings€&€Loan€AssociationÐ p*À%* Ðin€state€court€in€Webb€County,€Texas.€€The€defendants€were€a€real€estate€partnership€named€GoldÐ \+¬&+ ÐPark€Development€Partnership€and€fifteen€named€individuals€who€were€all€general€partners€in€theÐ H,˜', ÐGold€Park€entity.€€Steve€Morriss€was€both€a€general€partner€and€the€managing€partner€of€Gold€Park.Ð 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àThe€complaint€arose€from€a€loan€that€the€Tesoro€Bank€had€made€to€Gold€Park.€€Mr.€MorrissÐ ° Ðand€the€other€general€partners€had€guaranteed€the€loan,€but€had€failed€to€repay€it.€€The€bankÐ œì Ðsubsequently€went€into€receivership,€and€the€Federal€Deposit€Insurance€Corporation€(FDIC)€tookÐ ˆØ Ðover€its€assets.€€The€case€was€eventually€restyled€with€the€FDIC€as€plaintiff.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€January€17,€1992,€the€FDIC€filed€a€notice€of€removal€of€the€case€from€state€court€toÐ L œ Ðfederal€court.׃\×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€May€28,€1993,€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Southern€District€of€TexasÐ 8 ˆ Ðgranted€summary€judgment€to€the€FDIC€and€entered€a€final€judgment€against€Gold€Park€and€the€sixÐ $ t Ðremaining€individual€defendants,€holding€them€jointly€and€severally€liable€on€the€debt€in€the€amountÐ  ` Ðof€$1,939,051.36€plus€prejudgment€interest€and€postjudgment€interest€at€the€rate€of€3.54%€perÐ ü L  Ðannum.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€1999€the€FDIC€assigned€the€judgment€(ð ð1993€Texas€judgmentðð)€by€sale€to€another€entityÐ À  Ðand,€after€other€transfers,€it€was€sold€to€the€plaintiff€in€the€case€before€us,€Tareco€Properties,€Inc,Ð ¬ü  Ð(ð ðTarecoðð)€a€California€corporation.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà@’’ìàò òII.€€òòProceedings€In€Tennesseeó óóóˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àOther€judgments€had€been€entered€by€Texas€courts€against€Mr.€Morriss€stemming€from€failedÐ H˜ Ðreal€estate€development€projects.€€In€the€early€1990s,€Mr.€Morriss€was€living€in€California.€€In€1990Ð 4„ Ðhe€met€Mr.€Corliss,€a€neighbor€who€was€an€attorney.€€He€stated€in€sworn€filings€that€in€1993,׃od×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€heÐ  p Ðhired€the€California€law€firm€of€his€neighbor,€Ô‡jXXXXÔCorliss€&€Geringer,€to€attempt€to€settle,€resolve,€orÐ  \ Ðð ðworkoutðð€debts€and€several€judgments€that€existed€against€Mr.€Morriss,€specifically€including€theÐ øH Ðone€that€is€the€basis€of€the€action€before€us.Ð ä4 ÐÔ#†XXXjXÅ#ÔÌà  àMr.€Morriss€moved€to€Middle€Tennessee.€€He€became€involved€in€a€number€of€real€estateÐ ¼  Ðdevelopment€projects€in€this€state€and€elsewhere.€€In€a€number€of€those€projects,€Mr.€Geringer€andÐ ¨ø ÐMr.€Corliss,€the€attorneys€in€California,€and€another€Californian,€Mr.€Pressman,€among€others,€wereÐ ”ä Ðalso€involved€as€investors,€partners,€or€principals.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àProblems€arose€in€these€development€projects.€€In€1999€Mr.€Morriss€and€others,€includingÐ X ¨ Ðvarious€entities€he€had€created,€sued€Mr.€Corliss,€Mr.€Geringer,€Mr.€Pressman,€and€others€over€theseÐ D!” Ðâ âbusiness€enterprises€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County.€€Other€suits€between€these€groupsÐ 0"€  Ðof€parties€followed,€both€in€state€and€federal€court.€€With€this€backdrop€of€litigation,€the€case€nowÐ ° Ðunder€appeal€was€begun.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àIn€October€of€1999,€Tareco€began€collection€activities€against€Mr.€Morriss€in€both€state€andÐ tÄ Ðfederal€courts€in€Tennessee.׃b×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€present€complaint€was€filed€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€WilliamsonÐ `° ÐCounty€and€named€Mr.€Morriss€as€the€sole€defendant.€€Tareco€asked€the€court€to€enforce€the€1993Ð L œ ÐTexas€judgment€and€to€enjoin€Mr.€Morriss€from€transferring€any€property€that€might€be€available€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðsatisfy€that€judgment€to€a€third€party€for€less€than€full€consideration.€€Tareco€furnished€the€court€withÐ $ t Ða€list€of€entities€owned€or€controlled€by€Mr.€Morriss,€including€thirteen€in€Texas€and€fifteen€inÐ  ` ÐTennessee.׃cÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€court€granted€Tareco€the€temporary€restraining€order€it€sought,€followed€in€shortÐ ü L  Ðorder€by€a€preliminary€injunction.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àMr.€Morriss€responded€to€the€complaint€with€motions€for€a€protective€order€to€prevent€hisÐ À  Ðdeposition€and€for€relief€from€judgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€He€also€answered€and€asserted€Ð ¬ü  Ða€counterclaim€against€Tareco€and€six€other€parties.€€Ô‡jXXXXÔHe€asserted€that€the€conduct€of€Tareco€wasÐ ˜è  Ðillegal€and€that€Tareco€should€be€estopped€from€pursuing€the€relief€it€sought.€€Ô#†XXXjX5"#ÔHe€also€asked€the€courtÐ „Ô  Ðto€enjoin€various€parties€from€pursuing€any€of€three€different€Texas€judgments€that€had€beenÐ pÀ Ðrendered€against€him,€including€the€one€placed€in€issue€by€Tarecoððs€complaint€herein.€Ô‡jXXXXÔ€Mr.€MorrissÐ \¬ Ðargued€that€the€trial€court€should€deny€full€faith€and€credit€to€the€1993€Texas€judgment€and€declareÐ H˜ Ðthat€judgment€void,€ð ðat€least€in€the€hands€of€Tareco.ðð€Ô#†XXXjXü##ÔÔ‡jXXXXÔ€Ô#†XXXjX%#ÔThe€gist€of€all€these€filings€was€that€TarecoÐ 4„ Ðand€other€parties,€principally€those€who€were€involved€in€the€pending€litigation€over€businessÐ  p Ðventures,€were€conspiring€to€perpetrate€a€fraud€on€the€court€and€to€deprive€Mr.€Morriss€of€theÐ  \ Ðfinancial€ability€to€pursue€his€legal€remedies.׃f< ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡jXXXXÔThis€ð ðweb€of€deceit,ðð€including€his€former€lawyerððsÐ øH Ðalleged€use€of€confidential€information€to€Mr.€Morrissððs€detriment,€formed€the€basis€of€Mr.€MorrissððsÐ ä4 Ðclaim€of€misconduct€and€fraud€„€not€any€fraud€in€the€FDICððs€initial€securing€of€the€1993€TexasÐ Ð  Ðjudgment.Ð ¼  Ðâ âÔ#†XXXjX'#ÔÐ ¨ø ÐÔ‡jXXXXÔà  àÔ#†XXXjXÊ(#ÔIn€response€to€a€motion€by€Tareco€and€after€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Mr.€MorrissððsÐ ° Ðâ âmotion€for€relief€from€judgment€and€his€counterclaim.€€Later,€on€January€4,€2001,€the€court€grantedÐ œì ÐTareco€summary€judgment€on€its€request€to€enforce€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€Specifically,€the€courtÐ ˆØ Ðheld,€ð ðthere€is€no€basis€in€the€record€to€support€defendantððs€assertion€that€Tareco€does€not€own€theÐ tÄ Ðrights€to€the€F.D.I.C.€judgment€on€which€this€action€is€based.ðð€€The€court€entered€judgment€againstÐ `° ÐMr.€Morriss€in€favor€of€Tareco€for€$2,712,582.78.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMeanwhile,€on€May€8,€2000,€Tareco€had€filed€a€motion€for€civil€and/or€€criminal€contempt.€Ð $ t ÐTareco€alleged€that,€among€other€violations€of€the€courtððs€injunction,€Mr.€Morriss€had€transferredÐ  ` Ð$350,000€from€a€company€that€he€controlled€to€a€bank€account€in€the€name€of€his€daughter,€AmyÐ ü L  ÐMorriss.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€court€continued€the€contempt€hearing€to€give€the€defendantððs€appointed€counselÐ À  Ðtime€to€prepare,€it€found€that,€given€the€nature€of€the€case€as€an€action€on€a€foreign€judgment,€thereÐ ¬ü  Ðwas€no€just€reason€for€delay€of€entry€of€a€final€judgment,€notwithstanding€the€contempt€proceedingsÐ ˜è  Ðor€other€collection€actions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€Mr.€Morriss€did€not€appeal€this€finalÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€court€ultimately€found€Mr.€Morriss€to€be€in€contempt,€sentenced€him€to€ten€days€in€jailÐ H˜ Ð(eight€suspended),€and€ordered€him€to€pay€Tareco€$8,400€for€the€fees€and€expenses€incurred€as€aÐ 4„ Ðresult€of€the€contempt€hearing.€€He€served€the€two€days,€but€the€monetary€penalty€was€apparentlyÐ  p Ðnever€paid.Ð  \ ÐÌà@Ù Ù ìàò òIII.€€òòThe€Tennessee€Court€Reconsidersó óóóˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àAbandoning€his€conspiracy€defense,€and€with€new€counsel,׃x×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€on€June€19,€2001,€Mr.€MorrissÐ ¼  Ðfiled€a€motion€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€to€set€aside€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€of€January€4,€2001.€Ð ¨ø ÐAlthough€Mr.€Morriss€moved€to€set€aside€the€trial€courtððs€January€4,€2001€order€granting€judgmentÐ ”ä Ðon€the€1993€Texas€judgment,€his€request€for€relief€was€based€on€his€argument€that€the€1993€TexasÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€was€itself€void.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àMr.€Morriss€claimed€that€the€1993€Texas€judgment€was€void€because€he€was€never€servedÐ D!” Ðwith€any€papers€in€the€federal€litigation€and,€consequently,€the€federal€court€did€not€have€personalÐ 0"€  Ðjurisdiction€over€him.€€This€was€clarified€to€explain€that€he€had€been€served€with€process€when€theÐ #l! Ðsuit€was€originally€filed€in€state€court€and€had€filed€an€answer.€€The€FDIC€intervened€in€the€stateÐ $X" Ðcourt€action€and€removed€it€to€federal€court.€€Mr.€Morriss€claimed€he€was€not€served€with€any€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðâ âpapers€filed€in€federal€court,€including€the€January€17,€1992€notice€of€removal€and€the€FDICððsÐ à%0!$ Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€on€which€the€final€judgment€was€based,€and€that€the€record€did€notÐ ° Ðshow€service€on€him.׃{×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€trial€court€reviewed€the€record€in€the€underlying€federal€action,׃g ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€as€well€as€affidavits€filedÐ tÄ Ðin€support€of€and€opposition€to€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion€to€set€aside,€and€found€that€Mr.€Morriss€wasÐ `° Ðnot€represented€by€counsel€during€the€relevant€time€period€and€ð ð.€.€.€Steve€Morriss€was€not€servedÐ L œ Ðwith€either€the€removal€petition€or€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€thus€did€not€have€notice€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthese€proceedings.ðð€€The€court€further€held€(1)€Tennessee€courts€will€refuse€to€give€full€faith€andÐ $ t Ðcredit€to€a€foreign€judgment€if€the€court€entering€it€had€no€personal€jurisdiction,€(2)€under€federalÐ  ` Ðlaw,€failure€to€give€notice€of€removal€divests€the€federal€court€of€jurisdiction,€and€(3)€theÐ ü L  Ðrequirements€for€notice€of€the€filing€of€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€are€strictly€enforced.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€by€order€entered€August€1,€2001,€the€court€set€aside€its€earlier€judgmentÐ À  Ðgranting€summary€judgment€to€Tareco€and€entering€judgment€on€the€1993€Texas€judgment,€findingÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€Mr.€Morriss€had€been€denied€due€process€in€the€entry€of€the€Texas€judgment.׃m,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€courtÐ ˜è  Ðsubsequently€set€aside€its€temporary€injunction€as€well.€€The€August€1,€2001,€order€was€not€certifiedÐ „Ô  Ðas€final€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€€It€is€clear€from€the€briefs€and€the€record€below€that€theÐ pÀ Ðparties€and€the€trial€court€considered€this€order€interlocutory€and€effecting€only€the€setting€aside€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€summary€judgment€previously€granted€to€Tareco,€thus€reopening€the€case.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIV.€€òòFurther€Proceedings€In€Texasóóó óÐ  p ÐÓ?ÓÌà  àWhile€resisting€the€enforcement€of€the€1993€Texas€judgment€in€Tennessee,€Mr.€Morriss€alsoÐ øH Ðfiled€a€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€60(b)€motion€for€relief€from€that€judgment€in€the€Texas€federal€court€that€hadÐ ä4 Ðentered€the€judgment€originally.€€In€the€motion€in€federal€court€Mr.€Morriss€argued,€as€he€did€inÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€state€and€federal€courts,׃r¸×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€that€the€Texas€federal€district€courtððs€1993€order€was€void€asÐ ¼  Ðto€him€because€of€lack€of€notice.€€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion€was€filed€in€the€United€States€District€CourtÐ ° Ðfor€the€Southern€District€of€Texas€on€June€28,€2001.€€Thus,€this€motion€was€filed€shortly€after€theÐ œì Ðsimilar€motion€he€filed€in€the€Tennessee€court,€but€before€the€Tennessee€court€ruled€the€TexasÐ ˆØ Ðjudgment€was€not€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit.׃kà×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOn€March€28,€2002,€seven€months€after€the€Tennessee€courtððs€ruling,€the€Texas€federal€courtÐ L œ Ðfiled€a€Memorandum€and€Order׃nô×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€analyzing€Mr.€Morrissððs€lack€of€notice€argument€in€detail€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðultimately€rejecting€it.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€court€traced€the€history€of€Mr.€Morrissððs€appearances€in€the€original€case.€€He€first€filedÐ ü L  Ða€òòpro€seóó€answer€in€Texas€state€court€on€behalf€of€himself€as€well€as€the€partnership.€€ShortlyÐ è 8  Ðthereafter,€amended€pleadings€were€filed€by€a€law€firm€the€court€referred€to€as€the€Martin€firm.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€noted,€ð ðthe€subsequent€relationship€between€this€firm€.€.€.€and€Morriss€is€the€source€of€theÐ À  Ðinstant€dispute.ðð€€Although€the€state€court€allowed€the€Martin€firm€to€withdraw€as€counsel€of€recordÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€Mr.€Morriss€in€December€of€1987,€ð ða€series€of€later€filings€by€that€firm,€both€before€and€after€theÐ ˜è  Ð1992€removal,€at€least€caused€serious€ambiguity€as€to€whether€the€firm€was€purporting€to€representÐ „Ô  Ðthis€Defendant.ðð€€The€court€detailed€a€number€of€filings€where€the€firm€signed€as€counsel€for€allÐ pÀ Ðdefendants.€€Further,€Mr.€Morriss€never€filed€anything€during€the€five€year€pendency€of€the€case€toÐ \¬ Ðdeclare€his€òòpro€seóó€status€or€to€provide€an€address€different€from€counselððs.€€ð ðMorriss€completelyÐ ° Ðignored€his€responsibility€to€keep€the€parties€and€the€courts€abreast€of€his€alleged€òòpro€seóó€status€andÐ œì Ðhis€whereabouts.ðð€€Therefore,€the€court€concluded,€it€was€entirely€reasonable€for€the€FDIC€to€believeÐ ˆØ Ðthat€notice€of€removal€given€to€the€Martin€firm€constituted€notice€to€Mr.€Morriss.€€We€note€that€theÐ tÄ Ðmagistrate€judgeððs€report€pointed€out€that€Mr.€Morriss€had€appeared€as€the€managing€partner€of€GoldÐ `° ÐPark€and€there€is€no€dispute€Gold€Park€was€served€with€all€the€pleadings€and€was€represented€byÐ L œ Ðcounsel€throughout.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àSecondly,€the€court€held€that€a€failure€to€provide€notice€of€removal,€even€if€it€occurred,€doesÐ  ` Ðnot€affect€the€federal€courtððs€fundamental€authority€to€adjudicate€the€case.€€It€is€not€tantamount€toÐ ü L  Ðfailure€to€serve€original€process,€does€not€affect€the€courtððs€subject€matter€and€personal€jurisdiction,Ð è 8  Ðand€is€subject€to€waiver.€€The€function€of€a€notice€of€removal€is€to€afford€parties€the€opportunity€toÐ Ô$  Ðobject,€and€Mr.€Morriss€would€have€had€no€basis€for€any€objection€since€the€case€was€removedÐ À  Ðpursuant€to€a€federal€statute,€12€U.S.C.€ðð€1819,€that€creates€federal€question€jurisdiction€over€any€suitÐ ¬ü  Ðto€which€the€FDIC€is€a€party.€€Accordingly,€the€court€rejected€Mr.€Morrissððs€argument€that€lack€ofÐ ˜è  Ðnotice€of€removal,€if€there€were€such€a€defect,€would€void€the€subsequent€judgment€of€the€federalÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€without€a€showing€of€prejudice.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€court€found€the€summary€judgment€issue€more€problematic,€however.€€First,€the€recordÐ H˜ Ðshowed€that€in€a€status€report€filed€on€December€24,€1992,€the€FDIC€described€the€partiesÐ 4„ Ðrepresented€by€the€Martin€firm€and€Mr.€Morriss€was€not€one€of€the€parties€listed.€€The€FDIC€advisedÐ  p Ðthe€court€that€Mr.€Morriss€was€proceeding€òòpro€seóó€but€had€not€furnished€a€mailing€address.€€However,Ð  \ Ðwhen€the€disputed€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€filed€a€few€weeks€later,€the€certificate€ofÐ øH Ðservice€did€not€reflect€a€separate€mailing€to€Mr.€Morriss.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àConcerned€about€this€ð ðlapse,ðð€the€court€nonetheless€determined€that€Mr.€Morriss€was€notÐ ¼  Ðentitled€to€relief€under€Rule€60(b)€because€that€rule€must€be€construed€to€do€ð ðsubstantial€justiceðð€andÐ ¨ø Ðthat€ð ðthe€concept€of€void€judgments€should€be€narrowly€construed€in€the€interest€of€finality,ðð€citingÐ ”ä ÐòòCarter€v.€Fenneróó,€136€F.3d€1000€(5th€Cir.€1998).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€court€concluded€that€Mr.€Morrissððs€effort€to€set€aside€the€1993€Texas€judgment€wasÐ X ¨ Ðunrelated€to€any€attempt€at€substantial€justice,€but€instead€was€ð ða€belated€effort€to€find€an€escapeÐ D!” Ðfrom€a€judgment€for€which€this€Defendant€is€unquestionably€liable.ðð€€The€court€stated€that€none€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€partners€had€presented€any€legitimate€defense€to€the€action€on€the€documents,€signed€by€eachÐ #l! Ðpartner,€guaranteeing€the€partnershipððs€note.€€No€partner€appealed€the€judgment.€€The€court€foundÐ $X" Ðthat€Mr.€Morrissððs€liability€was€likely€fixed€by€Texas€law€making€partners€liable€for€partnershipÐ ô$D # Ðobligations€and€specifically€providing€that€a€judgment€against€a€partnership€may€also€be€enteredÐ à%0!$ Ðð ðagainst€a€partner€who€has€been€served€with€process€in€a€suit€against€the€partnership.ðð€€Since€Mr.Ð Ì&"% ÐMorriss€was€served€with€process€in€the€case,€he€was€liable€on€the€judgment€against€the€partnership,Ð ¸'#& Ðregardless€of€a€judgment€against€him€personally.€€The€court€further€found€that€even€now€Mr.€MorrissÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhad€made€no€meaningful€indication€of€what€legitimate€defense€he€would€offer€if€the€case€wereÐ )à$( Ðreopened.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€court€further€found€that€it€was€abundantly€clear€from€the€record€that€Mr.€Morriss€hadÐ ° Ðknown€about€the€1993€Texas€judgment€since€at€least€1995,€contrary€to€his€protestations€of€ignoranceÐ œì Ðuntil€1999.€€When€he€first€attacked€the€judgment€in€Tennessee€in€1999,€he€argued€a€basis€other€thanÐ ˆØ Ðthe€one€he€now€claimed.€€Further,€six€months€later,€he€entered€into€an€Agreed€Order€in€the€UnitedÐ tÄ ÐStates€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€to€turn€over€assets€to€Tareco€in€partialÐ `° Ðsatisfaction€of€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€Such€conduct€can€constitute€a€waiver€of€the€right€to€raiseÐ L œ Ða€new€ground€later€or,€at€the€least,€make€any€subsequent€Rule€60(b)€motion€untimely.€€The€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðended€its€thorough€analysis€of€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion€with€the€following:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  àTo€summarize,€the€instant€case€is€one€in€which€this€Court€clearly€had€federal€subjectÐ ü L  Ðmatter€jurisdiction€and€personal€jurisdiction€over€this€Defendant.€€Accordingly,€theÐ è 8  Ðjudgment€cannot€be€considered€ð ðvoidðð€in€the€normal€sense€and€can€only€be€attackedÐ Ô$  Ðon€the€basis€that€Defendantððs€due€process€rights€were€violated.€€The€suit€was€toÐ À  Ðenforce€a€note€made€by€a€partnership€of€which€the€Defendant€was€a€general,Ð ¬ü  Ðmanaging€partner.€€He€and€the€other€partners€signed€guarantees€for€the€note.€€NeitherÐ ˜è  Ðthe€partnership€nor€any€of€the€other€partners€offered€any€colorable€defense€in€thisÐ „Ô  Ðcase,€nor€did€they€appeal.€€This€Defendant€is€probably€liable€for€the€partnershipÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€in€any€event.€€Whatever€the€true€status€of€his€relationship€with€the€MartinÐ \¬ Ðfirm,€if€Defendant€was€proceeding€òòpro€seóó,€he€apparently€made€no€effort€whatever€toÐ H˜ Ðinform€himself€of€the€proceedings€in€the€case€nor€to€furnish€any€address€at€which€heÐ 4„ Ðcould€be€notified.€€Were€this€a€case€where€the€Court€had€granted€summary€judgmentÐ  p Ðòòsua€sponteóó€without€notice,€and€were€the€Defendant€to€thereafter€perfect€a€directÐ  \ Ðappeal,€the€harmless€error€doctrine€would€apply,€and€he€could€not€prevail€withoutÐ øH Ðshowing€that€he€had€some€evidence€to€refute€the€summary€judgment.€€òòSee€CelestineÐ ä4 Ðv.€Petroleos€de€Venezuela,€SAóó,€266€F.3d€343€(5th€Cir.€2001);€òòPowell€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð Ð  Ð849€F.2d€1576€(5th€Cir.€1988).€€Under€these€circumstances,€it€is€impossible€toÐ ¼  Ðconclude€that€ð ðsubstantial€justiceðð€requires€the€granting€of€this€motion€or€that€anyÐ ¨ø Ðlegitimate€due€process€right€of€this€Defendant€was€violated.€€òòCf.€Freeman€v.€City€ofÐ ”ä ÐDallasóó,€186€F.3d€601,€606„607€(5th€Cir.€1999)€(ð ð[D]ue€process€is€flexible€and€callsÐ €Ð Ðfor€such€procedural€protections€as€the€particular€situation€demandsðð€(quotingÐ l¼ ÐòòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€481,€92€S.€Ct.€2593,€33€L.Ed.2d€484€(1972));Ð X ¨ ÐòòMerriman€v.€Security€Ins.€Co.€of€Hartfordóó,€100€F.3d€1187,€1191€(5th€Cir.€1996)Ð D!” Ð(noting€that€sufficiency€of€notice€is€a€ð ðfact„intensive€inquiryðð).€€The€motion€isÐ 0"€  Ðtherefore,€DENIED.€€Out€of€an€abundance€of€caution,€however,€the€Court€shall€allowÐ #l! Ðthis€Defendant€until€April€9,€2002€to€seek€reconsideration€of€this€ruling€if€he€canÐ $X" Ðarticulate,€with€specific€factual€elaboration€and€supporting€authorities,€what€defenseÐ ô$D # Ðhe€would€have€offered€to€the€1993€summary€judgment€motion.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Morriss€apparently€did€not€take€advantage€of€the€opportunity€provided€by€the€court.€Ð ¸'#& ÐInstead,€he€appealed€this€decision€on€April€12,€2002.€€On€March€18,€2003,€the€United€States€CourtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€Appeals€for€the€Fifth€Circuit€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Mr.€Morrissððs€request€for€reliefÐ )à$( Ðfrom€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€òòTesoro€Savings€&€Loan€v.€Gold€Park€Developmentóó,€No.€02„40814,€Ð |*Ì%) Ð2003€WL€1529269€(5th€Cir.€March€18,€2003).€€The€appellate€court€rejected€Mr.€Morrissððs€argumentÐ h+¸&* Ðthat€the€federal€trial€court€was€required€to€give€preclusive€effect€to€the€ð ðprior€interlocutory€orderðð€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Tennessee€trial€court׃w×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€stated:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àMorriss€has€failed€to€convince€us€that€we€are€required€to€give€preclusive€effect€to€theÐ tÄ Ðfindings€of€the€Tennessee€Chancery€Court€„€findings€in€a€tentative€order€that€merelyÐ `° Ðreversed€a€grant€of€summary€judgment€against€Morriss€without€conclusivelyÐ L œ Ðadjudicating€the€rights€of€the€parties.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€court€went€on€to€find€that€Mr.€Morriss€had€failed€to€establish€that€he€did€not€receiveÐ  ` Ðactual€notice€of€the€removal€or€motion€for€summary€judgment,€regardless€of€any€defects€in€serviceÐ ü L  Ðor€proof€of€service.€€The€court€found€this€failure€fatal€to€Mr.€Morrissððs€Rule€60(b)(4)€request€forÐ è 8  Ðrelief€because€ð ðwithout€such€a€showing€Morriss€cannot€establish€the€existence€of€a€procedural€errorÐ Ô$  Ðof€constitutional€significance€or€any€meaningful€prejudice€against€him.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€Fifth€Circuit€also€agreed€with€the€district€court€that€any€lack€of€notice€was€due€primarilyÐ ˜è  Ðto€Mr.€Morrissððs€failures€to€keep€up€with€the€case€or€to€keep€the€court€informed€of€his€status€and€hisÐ „Ô  Ðaddress.€€Accordingly,€the€court€held€Mr.€Morriss€could€not€now€complain€that€any€failure€to€serveÐ pÀ Ðhim€amounted€to€a€prejudicial€constitutional€error.€€ð ðMorriss€cannot€reap€a€windfall€fromÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€for€which€he€is€ultimately€responsible.ððÐ H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óòòò òV.€€Subsequent€Proceedings€In€Tennesseeó óóóÐ  p ÐÓûrÓÌà  àA€few€weeks€after€the€ruling€by€the€U.S.€District€Court€in€Texas,€on€April€12,€2002,€TarecoÐ øH Ðagain€moved€the€Tennessee€court€for€summary€judgment€to€enforce€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€InÐ ä4 Ðan€order€dated€July€12,€2002,€the€court€denied€Tarecoððs€motion.€€In€that€order,€the€court€recountedÐ Ð  Ðits€earlier€decision€that€Mr.€Morriss€had€not€been€given€the€required€notice€in€the€original€lawsuit€andÐ ¼  Ðstated€that€its€August€1,€2001,€order€ð ðconcluded,€therefore,€that€the€FDIC€Judgment€is€not€entitledÐ ¨ø Ðto€full€faith€and€credit.ðð€€The€court€noted€that,€after€its€August€1,€2001€order,€Tareco€had€filed€aÐ ”ä Ðmotion€to€reconsider€ð ðasserting€that€Mr.€Morriss€did€receive€notice€of€the€removal€and€the€motionÐ €Ð Ðfor€summary€judgment€because€he€was€represented€by€one€or€more€of€the€attorneys€listed€on€theÐ l¼ Ðcertificates€of€service.ðð€€The€court€noted€that€Tareco€again€filed€a€great€deal€of€documentation€inÐ X ¨ Ðsupport€of€its€motion€to€reconsider׃hì×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€that€the€court€had€denied€the€motion€for€reconsideration€onÐ D!” ÐSeptember€12,€2001.Ð 0"€  Їà  àIn€addition,€the€court€discussed€the€March€29,€2002,€order€entered€by€the€Texas€court,€statingÐ ° Ðthat€that€court€had€found€that€Mr.€Morriss€was€represented€by€legal€counsel€at€the€times€the€FDICÐ œì Ðfiled€its€notice€of€removal€and€its€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€that€Mr.€Morriss€receivedÐ ˆØ Ðservice€of€those€papers€by€virtue€of€service€on€his€attorneys.׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€stated€that€the€motionÐ tÄ Ðfiled€by€Tareco:Ð `° ÐÌà8  àtakes€the€position€that€the€Texas€federal€courtððs€decision€gives€rise€to€an€estoppelÐ 8 ˆ Ðestablishing,€as€a€matter€of€law,€Tarecoððs€entitlement€to€enforce€the€FDIC€JudgmentÐ $ t Ðagainst€Mr.€Morriss€in€this€Court.€€The€court€finds€and€concludes,€however,€that€theÐ  ` Ðopposite€is€true€„€that€this€Courtððs€decision€of€August€1,€2001,€collaterally€estopsÐ ü L  ÐTareco€from€seeking€to€enforce€the€judgment,€at€least€in€the€courts€of€this€state.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àAs€a€basis€for€this€conclusion,€the€trial€court€held€that€its€August€1,€2001,€order€was€final€forÐ À  Ðcollateral€estoppel€or€issue€preclusion€purposes€even€though€it€was€not€final€for€òòres€judicataóó€purposesÐ ¬ü  Ðand€was€not€a€final€judgment€subject€to€appeal.€€The€court€explained€the€difference€in€ð ðfinalityðð€forÐ ˜è  Ðboth€purposes,€relying€on€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€Sections€13€and€14.€€Because€theÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€had€ð ðadequately€deliberatedðð€the€issue€of€service€on€Mr.€Morriss,€and€because€the€courtððsÐ pÀ Ðconclusions€were€ð ðfirmðð€and€not€ð ðavowedly€tentative,ðð€the€trial€court€held€that€its€previous€order€wasÐ \¬ Ðfinal€for€collateral€estoppel€purposes.€€Consequently,€the€court€held,€the€subsequent€decision€by€theÐ H˜ ÐUnited€States€District€Court€for€the€Southern€District€of€Texas€had€no€preclusive€effect€on€itsÐ 4„ Ðpreviously€entered€order.€€The€court€relied€on€òòCycles,€Ltd.€v.€Navistar€Fin.€Corp.óó,€37€F.3d€1088€(5thÐ  p ÐCir.€1994),€which€held,€òòinter€aliaóó,€ð ðCase€law€supports€our€conclusion€that€a€court€is€not€compelledÐ  \ Ðto€revise€its€fully€litigated€decision€by€later€inconsistent€decisions€of€other€courts.ðð€€37€F.3d€at€1090„Ð øH Ð91.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€issue€of€whether€Mr.€Morriss€had€been€served€with€the€notice€ofÐ ¼  Ðremoval€and€motion€for€summary€judgment€had€been€litigated€before€it€a€year€earlier€and,€therefore,Ð ¨ø ÐTareco€was€collaterally€estopped€from€relying€on€the€subsequent€federal€court€decision€that€reachedÐ ”ä Ða€contrary€result.€€Tareco€filed€two€motions€to€alter€or€amend.€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€final€order€was€entered€November€11,€2002.€In€it,€the€court€denied€Tarecoððs€motion€forÐ X ¨ Ðsummary€judgment€and€its€motions€to€alter€or€amend€and€granted€Mr.€Morrissððs€cross€motion€forÐ D!” Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€court€repeated€its€conclusion€that€the€1993€Texas€judgment€was€not€entitledÐ 0"€  Ðâ âto€full€faith€and€credit€because€Mr.€Morriss€had€not€been€served€with€notice€of€the€removal€of€theÐ #l! Ðoriginal€case€to€federal€court€or€of€the€summary€judgment€motion€filed€by€the€FDIC.׃p×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€courtÐ ° Ðdismissed€Tarecoððs€action€to€enforce€the€judgment.€€Tareco€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOn€November€18,€2002,€Mr.€Morriss€applied€to€have€the€record€of€his€criminal€contemptÐ tÄ Ðexpunged.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion,€and€Tareco€filed€a€Notice€of€Appeal€with€respect€toÐ `° Ðthe€order€of€expungement€as€well.€€On€May€19,€2003,€this€court€directed€that€the€two€appeals€filedÐ L œ Ðby€Tareco€be€consolidated.Ð 8 ˆ Ѐ€Ð $ t Ðà@l l ìàò òòòVI.€€Enforcement€Of€The€1993€Texas€Judgmentóóó óˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€long€and€winding€road€this€case€has€taken€on€its€way€to€our€door,€the€orderÐ è 8  Ðbefore€us€on€appeal€is€the€trial€courtððs€November€11,€2002,€final€order€denying€full€faith€and€creditÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€1993€Texas€judgment€and€dismissing€Tarecoððs€action€to€enforce€that€judgment.€€It€is€that€order€Ð À  Ðwe€must€review.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌÔ‡jXXXXÔà  àTareco€initiated€this€action€by€filing€a€complaint€to€enforce€the€1993€Texas€judgmentÐ „Ô  Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€26„6„101€òòet.€seqóó.,€the€Uniform€Enforcement€of€Foreign€JudgmentsÐ pÀ ÐAct€(ð ðActðð).€€Under€that€Act,€an€authenticated€foreign€judgment€properly€filed€may€be€enforced€afterÐ \¬ Ðit€has€been€on€file€for€thirty€days€and€the€judgment€debtor€does€not€show€that€the€judgment€is€onÐ H˜ Ðappeal,€has€been€stayed,€or€there€exists€a€ground€for€a€stay.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€26„6„105€&€„106;€Ð 4„ ÐòòBailey€v.€Sneedóó,€49€S.W.3d€327,€329€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€A€foreign€judgment€so€filed€may€beÐ  p Ðenforced€or€satisfied€in€the€same€way€as€a€judgment€of€a€court€of€this€state.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€26„6„Ð  \ Ð104(c).Ô#†XXXjXL‹#ÔÔ‡jXXXXÔ€€Ô#†XXXjXìŽ#ÔA€foreign€judgment€is€ð ðany€judgment,€order,€or€decree€of€a€court€of€the€United€States€or€ofÐ øH Ðany€other€court€which€is€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€in€this€state.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€26„6„103.Ô‡jXXXXÔÐ ä4 ÐÔ#†XXXjX#Ôò òòòóóó óòòÌóóà  àA€foreign€judgment€filed€pursuant€to€the€Act€ð ðÔ‡jXXXXÔhas€the€same€effect€and€is€subject€to€the€sameÐ ¼  Ðprocedures,€defenses€and€proceedings€for€reopening,€vacating,€or€staying€as€a€judgment€of€a€courtÐ ¨ø Ðof€record€in€this€state€and€may€be€enforced€or€satisfied€in€a€like€manner.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€26„6„Ð ”ä Ð104(c).€€Consequently,€Ô#†XXXjX·#ÔÔ‡jXXXXÔthe€grounds€and€procedures€for€vacating,€reopening,€or€setting€aside€a€foreignÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€are€those€set€out€in€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€Ô#†XXXjXH’#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ€òòRemington€Investments,€Inc.€v.€Obenauf,óó€1Ð l¼ ÐS.W.3d€666,€668€(Tenn.€Ct.€App€1999)Ô#†XXXWX#“#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ;€òòÔ#†XXXWXΓ#ÔÔ‡jXXXXÔBaileyóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€329;Ô#†XXXjX”#Ôòò€Coastcom,€Inc.€v.€Cruzenóó,€981Ð X ¨ ÐS.W.2d€179,€181€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);òòóóÔ‡jXXXXÔ€Ô#†XXXjXØ”#ÔòòBiogen€Distributors,€Inc.€v.€Tanneróó,€842€S.W.2d€253,€256Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).Ô‡jXXXXÔòòóóÐ 0"€  ÐÔ#†XXXjX„•#ÔÌòòóóÌÐ ô$D # Їà  àRule€60.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides,€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€court€may€relieve€a€party€.€.€.€from€aÐ ˆØ Ðfinal€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)€mistake,Ð tÄ Ðinadvertence,€surprise€or€excusable€neglect;€(2)€fraud€(whether€heretoforeÐ `° Ðdenominated€intrinsic€or€extrinsic),€misrepresentation,€or€other€misconduct€of€anÐ L œ Ðadverse€party;€(3)€the€judgment€is€void;€(4)€the€judgment€has€been€satisfied,€releasedÐ 8 ˆ Ðor€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€no€longer€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveÐ $ t Ðprospective€application;€or€(5)€any€other€reason€justifying€relief€from€the€operationÐ  ` Ðof€the€judgment.€€The€motion€shall€be€made€within€a€reasonable€time,€and€for€reasonsÐ ü L  Ð(1)€and€(2)€not€more€than€one€year€after€the€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€wasÐ è 8  Ðentered€or€taken.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àRelief€under€Rule€60.02€is€considered€ð ðan€exceptional€remedy.ðð€€òòNails€v.€Aetna€Ins.€Co.óó,€834Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.2d€275,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€function€of€the€rule€is€ð ðto€strike€a€proper€balance€between€theÐ ˜è  Ðcompeting€principles€of€finality€and€justice.ðð€€òòBanks€v.€Dement€Constr.€Co.,€Incóó.,€817€S.W.2d€16,€18Ð „Ô  Ð(Tenn.€1991)€(quoting€òòJerkins€v.€McKinneyóó,€533€S.W.2d€275,€280€(Tenn.€1976)).€€Rule€60.02€actsÐ pÀ Ðas€an€ð ðescape€valve€from€possible€inequity€that€might€otherwise€arise€from€the€unrelentingÐ \¬ Ðimposition€of€the€principle€of€finality€imbedded€in€our€procedural€rules.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBanksóó,€817€S.W.2d€atÐ H˜ Ð18òò€óó(quoting€òòToney€v.€Mueller€Co.óó,€810€S.W.2d€145,€146€(Tenn.€1991)).€€Because€of€the€importanceÐ 4„ Ðof€finality,€the€ð ðescape€valveðð€should€not€be€easily€opened.€€òòId.óóÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€ground€asserted€in€Mr.€Morrissððs€motion€was€that€the€1993€Texas€judgment€was€void.€Ð øH ÐThe€standard€for€determining€whether€a€judgment€is€void€is€well€settled:€whether€the€court€hadÐ ä4 Ðgeneral€jurisdiction€of€the€subject€matter,€whether€the€judgment€was€wholly€outside€the€pleadings,Ð Ð  Ðand€whether€the€court€had€jurisdiction€of€the€parties.€€òòGentry€v.€Gentryóó,€924€S.W.2d€678,€680„81Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€Absent€such€a€òòprima€facieóó€void€decree,€ð ða€flaw€in€procedureðð€will€not€render€a€decreeÐ ¨ø Ðvoid.€€òòIdóó.€at€681.€€Such€an€order€is€merely€voidable€or€is€valid.Ð ”ä ÐÌòòóóà  àThe€party€seeking€relief€under€Rule€60.02€has€the€burden€of€showing€grounds€therefor€andÐ l¼ Ðentitlement€to€relief.€òò€Spruce€v.€Spruceóó,€2€S.W.3d€192,€194€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòHoward€v.Ð X ¨ ÐHowardóó,€991€S.W.2d€251,€255€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòDavidson€v.€Davidsonóó,€916€S.W.2d€918,€923Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€òòóó€The€movant€must€substantiate€entitlement€to€the€request€by€clear€andÐ 0"€  Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòDavidsonóó,€916€S.W.2d€at€923;€òòDuncanóó€òòv.€Duncanóó,€789€S.W.2d€557,€563Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€a€party€seeking€to€have€a€court€of€this€state€deny€full€faith€and€credit€to€a€judgmentÐ à%0!$ Ðfrom€another€jurisdiction€has€the€€burden€of€demonstrating€why€the€court€should€refuse€to€enforceÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€foreign€judgment.€€òòóóParties€seeking€to€undermine€the€validity€of€a€foreign€judgment€have€a€ð ðsternÐ ¸'#& Ðand€heavyðð€burden.€€òòCoastcomóó,€981€S.W.2d€at€181;€òòBiogenóó€òòDistributorsóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€256.€€€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThat€is€because€judgments€from€other€jurisdictions€are€generally€entitled€to€full€faith€andÐ |*Ì%) Ðcredit€in€the€courts€of€this€state€pursuant€to€òòóóArticle€IV,€Section€1€of€the€United€States€Constitution.€Ð h+¸&* ÐòòHart€v.€Tourteóó,€10€S.W.3d€263,€269€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòBiogen€Distributors,€óó842€S.W.2d€759Ð ° Ðat€760;€òòFour€Seasons€Gardening€&€Landscaping,€Inc.€v.€Crouchóó,€688€S.W.2d€439,€442€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð œì ÐApp.€1985).€òò€óóÔ‡TXXXXÔUnder€the€Act,€the€courts€of€this€state€will€presume,€absent€proof€to€the€contrary,€thatÐ ˆØ Ðjudgments€from€other€jurisdictions€are€valid.€€òòFour€Seasons€Gardeningóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€441„42.׃q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XXXTXy§#ÔòòÐ tÄ ÐóóAlthough€final€judgments€of€courts€of€other€jurisdictions€are€ordinarily€conclusive,€courts€of€thisÐ `° Ðstate€are€not€required€to€afford€them€full€faith€and€credit€in€a€limited€number€of€circumstances.€òòHartóó,Ð L œ Ð10€S.W.3d€at€269;€òòFour€Seasons€Gardeningóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€442;òòÔ‡WXXXXÔ€Benhamóó,€650€S.W.2d€at€760Ô#†XXXWX8ª#Ô.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÔ‡TXXXXÔÌÔ#†XXXTX­ª#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔà  àOne€of€those€situations€is€where€the€court€rendering€the€judgment€lacked€subject€matterÐ  ` Ðjurisdiction€or€personal€jurisdiction€over€the€parties.€€òòTopham€v.€L.L.B.€Corpóó.,€493€S.W.2d€461,€462Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€1973);€òòHartóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€269;€òòBiogen€Distributorsóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€256.€In€that€situation,€theÐ è 8  Ðforeign€judgment€is€void€and€not€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€in€this€state.€€òòBenham,óó€650€S.W.2dÐ Ô$  Ðat€761.€€It€has€also€been€stated€that€courts€of€this€state€are€not€required€to€afford€a€foreign€judgmentÐ À  Ðfull€faith€and€credit€if€the€judgment€was€entered€in€violation€of€the€United€States€Constitution,€whichÐ ¬ü  Ðincludes€the€denial€of€due€process.€€òòIn€re€Riggsóó,€612€S.W.2d€461,€465€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980).Ô#†XXXWXðª#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ׃ed×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€duty€of€the€courts€of€this€state€is€to€give€such€effect€to€a€foreign€judgment€as€would€theÐ pÀ Ðcourts€of€the€jurisdiction€where€the€judgment€was€entered.€€òòÔ#†XXXWX‰®#ÔGraybar€Electric€Co.€v.€New€AmsterdamÐ \¬ ÐCasualty€Co.,óó€186€Tenn.€441,€451,€211€S.W.2d€903,€904„05€(Tenn.€1948);€òòBiogen€Distributorsóó,€842Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€at€256;€òòFour€Seasons€Gardeningóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€442.€€That€is€what€full€faith€and€creditÐ 4„ Ðmeans.€€òòBaileyóó,€49€S.W.3d€at€329.€€ð ðTherefore,€when€the€judgment€is€attacked€here,€the€focus€shouldÐ  p Ðbe€on€what€effect€the€attack€would€have€in€the€forum€that€rendered€the€judgment.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€330.€€Thus,Ð  \ Ðwhen€the€jurisdiction€of€the€rendering€court€over€the€parties€is€attacked,€we€must€look€to€the€law€ofÐ øH Ðthe€jurisdiction€issuing€the€judgment.€€òòFour€Seasons€Gardeningóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€442.€Ô‡WXXXXÔThe€partyÐ ä4 Ðchallenging€the€foreign€judgment€must€demonstrate€that€the€court€issuing€it€did€not€acquireÐ Ð  Ðjurisdiction€under€the€laws€applicable€in€that€forum.€€òòBiogen€Distributorsóó,€842€S.W.2d€at€256.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWhen€determining€whether€a€foreign€judgment€is€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit,€courts€ofÐ ”ä Ðthis€state€may€constitutionally€inquire€into€the€jurisdiction€of€the€rendering€court.€€òòAbernathy€v.Ð €Ð ÐChambers,óó€482€S.W.2d€129,€132€(Tenn.€1972);€€òòHarris€v.€Pooleóó,€688€S.W.2d€78,€81€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1984).Ô#†XXXWXù²#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ€However,€when€a€foreign€judgment€is€attacked,€courts€of€this€state€should€first€examineÐ X ¨ Ðwhether€the€issue€raised€in€the€attack€has€been€fully€and€fairly€litigated€in€the€court€rendering€theÐ ° ÐjudgmentòòÔ#†XXXWX½µ#Ôóó€because€Ô‡WXXXXÔð ða€judgment€is€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€„€„€even€as€to€questions€ofÐ œì Ðjurisdiction€„€„€when€the€second€courtððs€inquiry€discloses€that€those€questions€have€been€fully€andÐ ˆØ Ðfairly€litigated€and€finally€decided€in€the€court€that€rendered€the€original€judgment.ðð€€òòAbernathyóó,€482Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€at€132,€quoting€òòDurfree€v.€Dukeóó,€375€U.S.€106,€84€S.Ct.€242€(1963);€òòÔ#†XXXWXý¶#ÔGraybar€Electric€Co.óó,Ð `° Ð186€Tenn.€at€451,€211€S.W.2d€at€904„05.€Ô‡WXXXXÔÐ L œ ÐÌà  àConsequently,Ô#†XXXWXL¹#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ€if€the€challenges€to€the€foreign€judgment€involve€issues€that€have€been€fullyÐ $ t Ðand€fairly€litigated€in€the€court€rendering€the€original€judgment€and€finally€decided€in€that€court,€itsÐ  ` Ðjudgment€on€that€question€would€also€be€entitled€to€full€faith€and€credit€and€would€be€òòres€judicataÐ ü L  Ðóóas€to€any€subsequent€attempt€to€relitigate€those€issues.€òò€Abernathy,óó€482€S.W.2d€at€132;€òòCoastcomóó,Ð è 8  Ð981€S.W.2d€at€181;€€òòHarrisóó,€688€S.W.2d€at€81.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€federal€court€that€issued€the€original€1993€Texas€judgment€hasÐ ¬ü  Ðconsidered€the€exact€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Morriss€in€Tennessee.€€Those€issues€include€some€uniquelyÐ ˜è  Ðfederal€questions,€such€as€the€requirements€for€removal.€€The€federal€district€court€considered€itsÐ „Ô  Ðjurisdiction,€€the€due€process€claims,€and€Mr.€Morrissððs€entitlement€to€relief€under€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð pÀ Ð60.02,€all€under€federal€law.€€While€those€issues€were€not€litigated€in€the€original€action,€and€theÐ \¬ Ðfederal€district€courtððs€decision€on€them€was€not€made€before€the€Tennessee€trial€court€made€itsÐ H˜ Ðinterlocutory€ruling€on€them,€the€Texas€decision€was€final€before€the€Tennessee€courtÔ#†XXXWX½¹#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ€entered€its€finalÐ 4„ Ðjudgment.Ð  p ÐÌà  àTareco€argues€that€Ô#†XXXWXT¿#Ôthe€Texas€federal€courtððs€order€of€March€29,€2002,€was€final€for€purposesÐ øH Ðof€òòres€judicataóó€and,€therefore,€binding€on€the€Tennessee€trial€court€when€it€entered€its€final€judgment.€Ð ä4 ÐWe€agree,€for€reasons€explained€below.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Morriss€argues€that€the€Texas€federal€courtððs€decision€upholding€the€validity€of€the€1993Ð ¨ø ÐTexas€judgment€was€not€binding€on€the€Tennessee€trial€court€because€ð ðthe€first€judgment€on€an€issueÐ ”ä Ðprevails€over€a€later€judgment€on€the€issue.ððÔ‡TXXXXÔ€€To€support€this€proposition,€Mr.€Morriss€relies€on€aÐ €Ð Ðportion€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€that€states€that€neither€the€date€of€theÐ l¼ Ðcommencement€of€an€action,€nor€the€relative€timing€of€the€initiation€of€two€actions€involving€theÐ X ¨ Ðsame€matter,€affects€the€òòres€judicata€óóeffect€of€a€judgment.€€He€quotes€from€the€Restatement:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àFor€purposes€of€res€judicata,€the€effective€date€of€a€final€judgment€is€the€date€of€itsÐ #l! Ðrendition,€without€regard€to€the€date€of€commencement€of€the€action€in€which€it€isÐ $X" Ðrendered€or€the€action€in€which€it€is€to€be€given€effect.Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ  Ó***Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÓFÅÓà8  à.€.€.€In€order€that€a€final€judgment€shall€be€given€res€judicata€effect€in€a€pendingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaction,€it€is€not€required€that€the€judgment€shall€have€been€rendered€before€that€actionÐ )à$( Ðwas€commenced.€€Nor€is€a€judgment,€otherwise€entitled€to€res€judicata€effect€in€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðpending€action,€to€be€deprived€of€such€effect€by€the€fact€that€the€action€in€which€itÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€rendered€was€commenced€later€than€the€pending€action.€€It€is€merely€requiredÐ ° Ðthat€rendition€of€the€final€judgment€shall€antedate€its€application€as€res€judicata€in€theÐ œì Ðpending€action.€€Thus€when€two€actions€are€pending€which€are€based€on€the€sameÐ ˆØ Ðclaim,€or€which€involve€the€same€issue,€it€is€the€final€judgment€first€rendered€in€oneÐ tÄ Ðof€the€actions€which€becomes€conclusive€in€the€other€action€(assuming€any€furtherÐ `° Ðprerequisites€are€met),€regardless€of€which€action€was€first€brought.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌRestatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðð14€cmt.€a.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€Mr.€Morriss€argues,€that€when€there€are€two€inconsistent€judgments,€althoughÐ ü L  Ðthe€later€one€usually€prevails€in€a€third€action€between€the€parties,€where€one€of€the€conflictingÐ è 8  Ðresults€€was€reached€by€a€court€of€the€state€in€which€the€current€action€is€pending,€that€same„stateÐ Ô$  Ðdecision€prevails€over€an€inconsistent€judgment€from€another€jurisdiction.€€Consequently,€Mr.Ð À  ÐMorriss€argues,€the€Tennessee€trial€courtððs€August€1,€2001€order€prevails€over€the€later€Texas€districtÐ ¬ü  Ðcourt€judgment€upholding€the€1993€Texas€judgment.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€problem€with€these€arguments€is€that€the€August€1,€2001€order€issued€by€the€trial€court€Ð pÀ Ðwas€not€a€final€judgment.€€It€was€an€interlocutory€order€setting€aside€the€summary€judgmentÐ \¬ Ðpreviously€awarded€to€Tareco.€€As€Mr.€Morriss€himself€quotes€from€the€Restatement,€ð ðThe€rules€ofÐ H˜ Ðres€judicata€are€applicable€only€when€a€final€judgment€is€rendered.ðð€€òòRestatement€(Second)€ofÐ 4„ ÐJudgments€ðð€13óó.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€first€final€judgment€entered€on€the€issue€of€the€validity€of€the€1993€Texas€judgment€wasÐ øH Ðthat€of€the€Texas€federal€court€in€response€to€Mr.€Morrissððs€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€60(b)€motion.€€It€wasÐ ä4 Ðentitled€to€òòres€judicata€óóeffect,€precluding€Mr.€Morriss€from€relitigating€those€claims€and€issues.€€HisÐ Ð  Ðfederal€court€motion€was€identical€to€the€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€motion€he€filed€in€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðbelow.€€Mr.€Morriss€chose€to€bring€the€same€issues€before€two€different€courts;€he€is€bound€by€theÐ ¨ø Ðdecision€of€the€first€court€rendering€a€final€judgment.€€That€result€is€especially€appropriate€since€thatÐ ”ä Ðjudgment€was€rendered€by€the€court€whose€original€judgment€was€being€attacked€and€was€basedÐ €Ð Ðupon€law€applicable€to€that€forum.׃s×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XXXTXHÂ#ÔÔ‡TXXXXÔÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àMr.€Morriss€also€argues€that€the€trial€courtððs€August€1,€2001€order€was€properly€givenÐ D!” Ðpreclusive€effect€by€the€trial€court€because,€even€though€it€was€not€a€ð ðfinalðð€judgment€subject€toÐ 0"€  Ðappeal,€it€met€the€finality€requirements€applicable€to€collateral€estoppel.€€Mr.€Morris€makes€the€sameÐ #l! Ðargument,€relying€on€the€Restatement,€that€the€trial€court€adopted€in€its€€July€12,€2002€order€denyingÐ $X" ÐTarecoððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€to€enforce€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€€Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àÔ#†XXXTX|Ò#ÔCollateral€estoppel€is€an€issue„preclusion€doctrine.€€òòHampton€v.€Tennessee€Truck€Sales,€Inc.óó,Ð ° Ðâ â993€S.W.2d€643€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€Its€basic€tenet€is€that,€ð ð[o]nce€an€issue€has€been€actually€orÐ œì Ðnecessarily€determined€by€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction,€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppelÐ ˆØ Ðrenders€that€determination€conclusive€on€the€parties€and€their€privies€in€subsequent€litigation,€evenÐ tÄ Ðwhen€the€claims€or€causes€of€action€are€different.ðð€€òòGibson€v.€Trantóó,€58€S.W.3d€103,€113€(Tenn.Ð `° Ð2001),€quotingòò€State€ex€rel.€Cihlaróó€òòv.€Crawfordóó,€39€S.W.3d€172,€178€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€TheÐ L œ Ðpurposes€behind€this€court„devised€doctrine€include€the€prevention€of€inconsistent€decisions.€€òòBeatyÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€McGrawóó,€15€S.W.3d€819,€825€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).Ð $ t ÐÌà  àThe€requirements€for€the€successful€invocation€of€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€inÐ ü L  ÐTennessee€are€well„settled.€€Among€them€is€that€ð ðthe€judgment€in€the€earlier€suit€has€become€final.ðð€Ð è 8  ÐòòBeatyóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€825.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòOceanics€School,€Inc.€v.€Barbouróó,€112€S.W.3d€135,€146€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  ÐCt.€App.€2003);€òòFrank€Rudy€Heirs€Assocs.€v.€Sholodge,€Incóó.,€967€S.W.2d€810,€813€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð À  Ð1997);€òòMorris€v.€Esmark€Apparel,€Incóó.,€832€S.W.2d€563,€565€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àUnder€Tennessee€law,€the€trial€courtððs€August€1,€2001€order€setting€aside€the€summaryÐ „Ô  Ðjudgment€previously€granted€to€Tareco€and€reopening€the€case€was€subject€to€revision€at€any€timeÐ pÀ Ðprior€to€entry€of€the€judgment€adjudicating€all€the€claims€and€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€all€theÐ \¬ Ðparties.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€54.02.€€It€was€not€a€final€judgment€and,€therefore,€did€not€meet€theÐ H˜ Ðrequirements€for€the€invocation€and€application€of€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel.€€ThatÐ 4„ Ðinterlocutory€order€did€not€preclude€Tareco€from€litigating€the€issue€of€the€validity€of€the€1993€TexasÐ  p Ðjudgment€or€from€submitting€and€relying€upon€the€later€Texas€federal€court€judgment.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àFor€all€these€reasons,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€final€order€granting€summary€judgment€toÐ ä4 ÐMr.€Morriss€and€refusing€to€enforce€the€1993€Texas€judgment.€×ƒi×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ô‡WXXXXÔ€€We€also€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÐ Ð  Ðorder€denying€Tarecoððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€find€that€Tareco€is€entitled€to€enforce€theÐ ° Ð1993€Texas€judgment€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€26„2„101òò€et€seqóó.€Ð œì ÐÌÔ#†XXXWX±ß#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔò òà@00#ìàVII.€€òòContemptóóˆÐ tÄ Ðó óÌà  àAs€we€stated€above,€the€trial€court€sanctioned€Mr.€Morriss€for€violating€its€injunction€that€heÐ L œ Ðnot€transfer€his€assets€to€another€party€for€less€than€full€consideration.€The€court€conducted€a€trialÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€contempt€charges€and€concluded€that€Mr.€Morris€was€guilty€of€criminal€contempt,€specificallyÐ $ t Ðfinding€that€he€was€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€of€willfully€disobeying€the€courtððs€order.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ` ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„9„102(3).€€In€an€order€dated€January€17,€2002,Ô#†XXXWXá#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔ€the€court€sentenced€him€to€tenÐ ü L  Ðdays€of€incarceration,€with€eight€days€suspended,€providing€he€not€violate€any€order€of€the€court€inÐ è 8  Ðthe€future.€Ô#†XXXWXÎã#Ô€The€order€also€directed€that€Mr.€Morriss€pay€$8,400€in€attorneys€fees€and€expenses€thatÐ Ô$  Ðwere€incurred€by€Tareco€as€a€result€of€its€attorney€serving€as€the€prosecutor€in€the€contempt€case.Ô‡WXXXXÔÐ À  ÐAdditionally,€the€order€declared€that€ð ð[a]fter€the€final€termination€of€this€case,€the€Defendant€SteveÐ ¬ü  ÐMorrissððs€conviction€shall€be€subject€to€expungement€by€the€Court€pursuant€to€the€provisions€ofÐ ˜è  ÐT.C.A.€ðð€40„35„313.ðð€€Ô#†XXXWX™å#ÔThat€statute€sets€out€the€procedures€for€expungement€of€the€criminal€recordsÐ „Ô  Ðof€first„time€offenders€who€have€been€placed€on€probation€and€who€have€successfully€completed€theÐ pÀ Ðterms€of€their€probation.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAfter€the€trial€courtððs€final€disposition€of€this€case€in€his€favor,€Mr.€Morriss€filed€a€motionÐ 4„ Ðto€have€his€contempt€conviction€expunged.€On€December€5,€2002,€Ô‡WXXXXÔthe€trial€court€entered€an€orderÔ#†XXXWXÉè#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔÐ  p ÐÔ#†XXXWX+é#Ôexpunging€any€public€records€relating€to€his€conviction€of€criminal€contempt,€stating€that€it€wasÐ  \ Ðtaking€this€action€ð ðpursuant€to€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„32„101€et€seq.ðð€€TheÐ øH Ðreferenced€statutes€apply€to€a€broader€range€of€defendants€than€those€benefitted€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ä4 Ððð€40„35„313,€including€those€who€have€been€arrested€and€released€without€being€charged,€thoseÐ Ð  Ðwhose€charges€have€been€dismissed,€and€those€who€have€been€found€not€guilty€by€a€jury.€€The€useÐ ¼  Ðof€this€statute€indicates€to€us€that€once€the€court€in€this€case€found€that€it€would€not€enforce€the€1993Ð ¨ø ÐTexas€judgment€against€Mr.€Morriss€it€felt€there€was€no€longer€any€reason€to€punish€him€for€hisÐ ”ä Ðhandling€of€his€own€assets.Ð €Ð ÐÔ‡WXXXXÔÌÔ#†XXXWXôì#Ôà  àÔ‡WXXXXÔTareco€appeals€this€order€of€expungement€on€the€basis€of€Mr.€Morrissððs€failure€to€complyÐ X ¨ Ðwith€the€original€contempt€orderððs€provision€that€he€pay€$8,400€in€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses,€anÐ D!” Ðargument€relevant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„9„313€if€the€order€to€pay€expenses€is€considered€a€formÐ 0"€  Ðof€probation.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àÔ#†XXXWXCí#ÔBecause€neither€the€statutory€basis€for€the€expungement,€Mr.€Morrissððs€qualification€forÐ ô$D # Ðexpungement€under€the€applicable€statute,€nor€the€courtððs€reasoning€is€clear,€we€vacate€theÐ à%0!$ Ðexpungement€order.€€On€remand,€the€court€may€consider€Mr.€Morrissððs€request€in€light€of€ourÐ Ì&"% Ðholding€herein€if€relevant€to€the€courtððs€decision.Ô‡WXXXXÔÐ ¸'#& ÐÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÔ#†XXXWX§ð#ÔÔ‡WXXXXÔà@ÀÀ%ìàò òòòConclusionó óóóˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed,€and€the€expungement€order€is€vacated.€€The€caseÐ ˆØ Ðis€remanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÐ tÄ Ðthis€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€appellee,€Steve€Morriss.Ð `° ÐÌÌÌÔ#†XXXWXñ#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE