Wyman v. Newhouse

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937 · Civil Procedure

93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditCollateral Attack on JudgmentFraudulent Service of Processfraudulent inducementservice of processdefault judgment

Facts

The plaintiff obtained a Florida default judgment against the defendant after he was served with process upon arriving in Miami. For purposes of the motion, the defendant's affidavits were taken as true and showed that the plaintiff, with whom he had previously had meretricious relations, lured him from New York to Florida by false statements that her mother was dying, that she was leaving the United States, and that she loved him and needed to see him. When he arrived, a deputy sheriff immediately served him with process in a damages suit, with the plaintiff present nearby and the surrounding circumstances indicating a planned setup. The defendant returned to New York, ignored the Florida summons on advice of counsel, and judgment was entered by default.

Issue

Must New York enforce a Florida default judgment under full faith and credit when the defendant was allegedly induced by fraud to enter Florida solely so he could be served with process there? May the defendant raise that fraud as a collateral defense in the enforcement action rather than first seeking relief in Florida?

Rule

A judgment procured through fraud that goes to the rendering court's jurisdiction over the person is void and may be collaterally attacked in a later enforcement action. Fraudulent inducement of a defendant into a state for the sole purpose of effecting service of process is a fraud affecting jurisdiction and is equivalent to lack of personal jurisdiction; in such circumstances, the defendant need not show a defense on the merits and need not first proceed in the rendering state to vacate the judgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Park, a resident of New Jersey, told Owen Briggs that her brother in Tampa was dying and begged him to fly to Florida to help settle urgent family affairs. When Owen arrived at the airport in Tampa, a process server immediately handed him a summons in Elena's Florida damages suit, and Elena was standing nearby with her lawyer. Owen returned to Newark, did not appear, and Elena later sued on the Florida default judgment in New York.

In the New York enforcement action, which argument is strongest for Owen?

Explanation. A sister-state judgment is not entitled to enforcement when the plaintiff procured personal jurisdiction by fraudulently enticing the defendant into the state solely for service of process. Fraud affecting acquisition of personal jurisdiction is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, rendering the judgment void and subject to collateral attack in the enforcement action. The defendant need not first proceed in the rendering state and need not show a merits defense.