Opinion
11-P-111
12-20-2011
INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SUPPLY, INC. v. APPLIED ANALYTICS, INC. & another.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This is a collection action brought by a vendor, Industrial Automation Supply, Inc. (Industrial), against its customer, Applied Analytics, Inc. (Applied Analytics), and Applied Analytics's owner Yoav Barshad, on his personal guarantee. The original action was brought in Maine, which issued a money judgment in Industrial's favor on summary judgment. Neither defendant appealed. Industrial then filed the present action to enforce the Maine judgment. The defendants originally were defaulted, the default was vacated, and the matter proceeded to summary judgment. A Superior Court judge issued a judgment in Industrial's favor in the total amount of $30,000 (including attorney's fees).
On appeal, the defendants, who asserted a variety of defenses below, here argue only that the Maine judgment is repugnant to Massachusetts law and policy and, therefore, not entitled to full faith and credit. Their position is based upon a claim that the Maine judge improperly 'disregarded' their affidavits, submitted in opposition to Industrial's summary judgment motion, because of a 'technical' matter (the defendants' made their allegations on information and belief rather than on personal knowledge). However, the appropriate forum for challenging that decision was on appeal in Maine, not in a challenge in Massachusetts under the full faith and credit clause. See, e.g., Mooney v. Hinds, 160 Mass. 469, 470-471 (1894) (Commonwealth will not avoid sister State judgment on ground that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation in the trial); Guardianship of Enos, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 360, 362-363 (1986) (Commonwealth could not refuse to give Florida judgment full faith and credit notwithstanding allegation of due process violation where issue could have been raised in Florida courts).
Moreover, Maine's Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is more or less the same as Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974). Massachusetts courts apply similar standards regarding affidavits and statements of material fact as do the Maine courts. Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides that 'affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.' Massachusetts requires that the affidavit rest upon the affiants personal knowledge and state facts, not expressions of belief or understanding. Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Envtl. Servs. (NJ), Inc., 416 Mass. 684, 696 (1993). In addition, such facts must be specific and admissible in evidence. Ibid.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Rapoza, C.J., Mills & Graham, JJ.),