COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59884 WILSON & REITMAN : : : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JOSEPH G. BERICK : OPINION : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 6, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. 184882 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: CURTIS A. GRAHAM WILSON & REITMAN A Professional Corporation 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 For Defendant-Appellant: JOSEPH G. BERICK BERICK, PEARLMAN & MILLS CO., L.P.A. 1350 EATON CENTER 1111 SUPERIOR AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114 -2- SPELLACY, J.: On October 10, 1989, plaintiff-appellee Wilson & Reitman, A Professional Corporation ("appellee") filed a Small Claims Complaint in the West Los Angeles, CA Small Claims Court against defendant-appellant Joseph G. Berick ("appellant"). Appellee alleged that appellant owed it $2,000 for failing to pay his legal fees. Apparently, appellant had hired appellee to provide legal services in California for his son, Peter Berick. Peter Berick was involved in a federal lawsuit and needed legal assistance in California. According to appellee, appellant violated their retainer agreement by refusing to pay his legal fees for legal services rendered. Thus, it filed the small claims complaint against appellant. On the back side of the small claims complaint, the California court provided information to appellant regarding a small claims action. The complaint informed appellant that if he did not appear at the trial, a default judgment would be entered against him. On December 6, 1989, the West Los Angeles Small Claims Court entered judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $2,000. In the notice of entry judgment, appellant was informed that said judgment was a default judgment. On February 6, 1990, appellee filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas a copy of its judgment from the West Los -3- Angeles Small Claims Court. Appellee sought to enforce its judgment against appellant pursuant to R.C. 2329.022. On March 7, 1990, appellant filed a motion requesting the trial court to vacate, dismiss and declare null and void appellee's filing of its foreign judgment. Appellant argued that although judgments of foreign states are entitled to full faith and credit, the trial court in the instant case did not have personal jurisdiction over him. On April 9, 1990, appellant filed another motion seeking a dismissal of appellee's filing of the foreign judgment. On May 7, 1990, the trial court denied both appellant's motion to vacate and expunge and his motion to dismiss. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently raised the following seven assignments of error: I. PLAINTIFF IN ITS OWN BEHALF AS A CORPORATION MAY NOT PRACTICE LAW IN OHIO. II. CURTIS A. GRAHAM, AS A NON-ADMITTED ATTORNEY, MAY NOT REPRESENT A CORPORATION - EVEN AN OHIO CORPORATION - (OR ANY OTHER CLIENT) IN OHIO. III. IN VIEW OF NUMBERS I AND II, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING PLEADINGS BY SUCH NON- ADMITTED COUNSEL. IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON BY THE LOS ANGELES SMALL CLAIMS COURT. V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS A VALID "DEFAULT" JUDGMENT WHEN IT HAD BEFORE IT EVIDENCE OF A FILING OF A "MOTION FOR LEAVE, ETC." WHICH WAS FILED AND ACCEPTED BY THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT. -4- VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF LOS ANGELES IS A COURT OF RECORD ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION I OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION AND OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2329.02. VII. OHIO REVISED CODE SECTIONS 2329.022 AND 2329.023 CLEARLY TRACK AND FOLLOW SECTION 2329.02, REQUIRING THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BE OF A JUDGMENT FROM A "COURT OF RECORD." Appellant's first, second and third assignments of error will be addressed together, since they all argue that appellee should have been prohibited from representing itself in the State of Ohio. Appellants also contend that Curtis A. Graham, a shareholder and partner with appellee, should not have been permitted to make an appearance in the instant case. We find that appellee and Curtis A. Graham, as a shareholder and partner with appellee, had a real interest in the subject matter of this action. We are unable to conclude that either appellee or Curtis A. Graham were attempting to practice law in the State of Ohio, when they filed the California judgment with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Clearly, appellee and Curtis P. Graham were merely enforcing their judgment against appellant, who is located within Cuyahoga County. Appellant's first, second and third assignments of error are without merit and are overruled. Appellant's fourth and fifth assignments of error will be addressed jointly since they both challenge the jurisdiction of the West Los Angeles Small Claims Court. -5- A foreign judgment is subject to collateral attack in Ohio, if there was no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. Litsinger Sign Co. v. American Sign Co. (1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 1. Appellant asserts that the California court had no personal jurisdiction over him, thus, it erroneously entered a default judgment in favor of appellee. Upon a careful review of the record, we are unable to find that the West Los Angeles Small Claims Court lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant. The documentary evidence demonstrates that appellant retained the legal services of appellant in the state of California. The evidence further shows that legal services were rendered and attorney's fees were incurred on behalf of appellant. We find that the West Los Angeles Small Claims Court properly exercised in personam jurisdiction over appellant. We conclude that appellant availed himself of the privileges of conducting business in the state of California, which justified the exercise of jurisdiction over him in California. Appellant's fourth and fifth assignments of error are not well taken and are overruled. Appellant's sixth and seventh assignments of error will be dealt with together, since they both argue that the judgment of the West Los Angeles Small Claims Court is not entitled to full faith and credit. A valid judgment rendered in California must be recognized in Ohio. Section 1, Article IV, United States Constitution; R.C. -6- 2329.022. In the instant case, we find that the judgment rendered in California, in favor of appellee, was valid. Thus, we conclude that it was entitled to full faith and credit in Ohio. Accordingly, we determine that the trial court did not err in denying both appellant's motion to vacate and expunge and his motion to dismiss. Appellant's sixth and seventh assignments of error are without merit and are overruled. Trial court judgment is affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellant recover of appellees its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, C.J., AND HARPER, J., CONCUR. LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .