Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease v. Ryan

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that a California resident who intervenes in Ohio litigation and goes there for negotiations resolving the litigation has

[93]

sufficient minimum contacts with Ohio to enable its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over him in an action by his Ohio attorney for attorneys’ fees.

The law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease (Vorys) represented Jeffrey Ryan, Equinox Arabians, Geraldine Coelho, Maurice Ryan, and Lee Ryan (Ryans) in a dispute over an Arabian horse, Witroska. Vorys is located in Ohio; Ryans are California residents and a California partnership. Ryans signed a written agreement for the purchase of Witroska from Halsted Arabians, an Ohio business. Ryans delivered its check for $42,500 to Halsted in Ohio and were to receive Witroska later, in Kentucky. Neil Chur, a third party, filed suit against Halsted in Ohio, claiming he had purchased Witroska from Halsted before the agreement between Halsted and Ryans. Halsted had refused to deliver title or possession of Witroska to Chur.

Ryans’ California attorney arranged for Vorys to intervene in the Ohio lawsuit, to protect Ryans’ claim to Witroska. Ryans became dissatisfied with Vorys over the fee it charged Ryans for making an unsuccessful motion. Maurice and Jeffrey Ryan went to Ohio and negotiated a settlement of the lawsuit, but felt the settlement papers prepared by Vorys were defective. Ryans refused to pay Vorys’ fees.

Vorys filed an action in Ohio for payment of its fees. Ryans failed to appear and the Ohio court rendered a default judgment for Vorys. Vorys subsequently obtained a “sister state judgment” in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Ryans moved to vacate this judgment contending the Ohio court lacked personal jurisdiction to render the original judgment. Ryans appeals from the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate. We affirm the judgment.

A defendant in an action to enforce a foreign judgment is permitted to show “that the foreign judgment is in excess of jurisdiction,” except when the jurisdiction issue was expressly litigated in the foreign state.

(Craig