Copyright (c) 1996 Rutgers School of Law - Camden
Rutgers Law Journal
SYMPOSIUM: ENTIRE CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE: ARTICLE: WHERE'S THE BEEF? THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL EFFECTS OF NEW JERSEY'S ENTIRE CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE
Rutgers Law Journal
28 Rutgers L. J. 87
Stephen B. Burbank **
New Jersey's Entire Controversy doctrine raises difficult analytical and policy questions, particularly as applied to the joinder of parties, when it is viewed from a domestic perspective. Viewed from interjurisdictional perspectives, the doctrine is challenging even for one who has probed the dark recesses of full faith and credit and federal common law. n1 It is no surprise, then, that a group of recent New Jersey supreme court decisions demonstrates some of the troubling aspects of the doctrine as domestic law. A case exploring its interjurisdictional effects, MortgageLinq Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co., n2 is at least as troubling, both analytically and as a matter of policy.
I propose to reexamine the interjurisdictional issues that were the subject of the New Jersey supreme court's decision in MortgageLinq. I will also consider other situations in which this creature of domestic law may be translated onto the national scene.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ignored distinctions that may be important to a clear and correct analysis, including the court whose judicial proceedings were in question as F1 (state or federal?) and the status of those proceedings at the time the New Jersey trial court ruled as F2 (judgment or no judgment?). I proceed by treating such distinctions as important for analysis of New Jersey's obligations under federal law.
I conclude that, on the assumptions that F1 was a state court that had entered judgment prior to a ruling in F2, the MortgageLinq decision violated those obligations ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.