eNotes – Liability – July 2023 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

The Corcoran Gallery of Art v. Petty
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 21-CV-0695

Decided: March 23, 2023

When an issue, like jurisdiction, has been fully litigated in another tribunal, courts must give full faith and credit to the other tribunal’s decision.

Background

The Corcoran Gallery of Art was an art gallery in the District of Columbia. In 2014, the gallery closed. The trustees of the gallery sought to distribute the assets in a manner that would comport with the gallery founder’s intentions. A cy pres order was issued that would allow the National Gallery of Art to take or help redistribute the Corcoran’s art collection. One collection of art that was not taken by the National Gallery was called the Pascal Collection. The Pascal Collection was kept in storage while the National Gallery searched for a recipient.

Petty was the trustee of the Tyler Trust, which had gifted the Pascal Collection to The Corcoran. In 2018 Petty filed a Petition in a California probate court seeking a return of the Pascal Collection. The Corcoran appeared in the California Probate Court case for an initial hearing, but failed to appear for a second hearing. An Order to enter default judgment against The Corcoran was submitted, and the Probate Court awarded return of the Pascal Collection to the Tyler Trust. The Corcoran appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the Probate Court’s judgment. It disposed of The Corcoran’s jurisdictional arguments, finding that Corcoran’s first appearance constituted a general appearance, and thus waived its right to contest personal jurisdiction.

Before the California Court of Appeal ruled, Petty filed a request to enforce the Probate Court’s Order in D.C. Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Probate Court’s ruling and rejected The Corcoran’s jurisdictional appeal. The D.C. Superior Court granted Petty’s Motion to enforce the California judgment. The Corcoran appealed the D.C. Superior Court’s decision, arguing that the D.C. Court had to reconsider the California Probate Court’s jurisdiction before it enforced the judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeals in D.C. rejected this argument. It found that it had to give full faith and credit to the California Probate Court’s ruling. The D.C. Court of Appeals found that the California Probate Court’s judgment had res judicata effect and could not be re-litigated. The crux of the issue was whether the courts in California had “fully litigated” the issues in the original forum. The California Court of Appeal had already fully considered Corcoran’s jurisdictional arguments and rejected them. The Corcoran chose to fully litigate in California, and it could not reargue the jurisdictional points in D.C. just because it disagreed with the California rulings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202) 945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.