PETER DOMINIC CLIFT v. CHRYSEIS OLIAS FOX (2026)

These related appeals concern marital assets that were partitioned by both a Massachusetts court and a Louisiana court, resulting in a separate Louisiana judgment ordering that the Massachusetts judgment be made executory in Louisiana. For the following reasons, we find the trial court was legally correct in determining that the out-of-state judgment was executory in Louisiana.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Peter Dominic Clift and Chryseis Olias Fox were married in Texas in September 1994. In May 1995, they moved to Massachusetts where they purchased a home in Falmouth, which remained their primary marital residence until they legally separated in 2021.¹ Mr. Clift established a separate residence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when he began a teaching position as a full-time professor of geology at Louisiana State University in January 2012. At that point in their marriage, the parties visited each other periodically, but they maintained separate residences as Ms. Fox never permanently moved from the Massachusetts residence and Mr. Clift lived at the Louisiana residence.

Eventually, Mr. Clift initiated a divorce proceeding in Louisiana on May 17, 2021. Shortly after, Ms. Fox filed a complaint for divorce and spousal support in Massachusetts on June 17, 2021.² Ms. Fox responded to the Louisiana divorce proceeding by filing numerous exceptions in which she referenced the ongoing Massachusetts proceedings. Each party amended their respective divorce pleadings to request a partition/division of the marital assets. After being served with appropriate notice of the Massachusetts proceedings against him, Mr. Clift chose not to make an appearance in Massachusetts. His Louisiana counsel informed the Massachusetts court that Mr. Clift would not participate in the proceedings as there was a pending divorce proceeding in Louisiana. On January 5, 2022, the Louisiana court granted Mr. Clift an “absolute divorce” from Ms. Fox, without any mention of partitioning the marital assets or addressing spousal support.

Later that year, Mr. Clift did not attend the one-day trial in Massachusetts on October 24, 2022, set to hear Ms. Fox's claims pertaining to the division of marital assets. Thereafter, the Massachusetts court rendered a judgment dividing the marital estate and awarding Ms. Fox alimony and attorney fees on January 3, 2023. Pursuant to the Massachusetts court order, Ms. Fox was awarded the house in Massachusetts and Mr. Clift was awarded the house in Louisiana. Mr. Clift appealed from the Massachusetts judgment, primarily arguing that the division of property was inequitable. While Mr. Clift's appeal was pending in Massachusetts, Ms. Fox filed a petition of her own in the Louisiana proceedings on January 27, 2023. In that petition, Ms. Fox sought to make the Massachusetts judgment that had divided the marital assets executory in Louisiana. She attached a certified copy of the Massachusetts judgment to her petition, along with a copy of the letter to the Massachusetts court from Mr. Clift's attorney indicating that Mr. Clift was aware of the Massachusetts proceeding but would not participate.

The Louisiana trial court did not act on Ms. Fox's petition concerning the executory nature of the Massachusetts judgment before considering Mr. Clift's petition to partition the marital assets in Louisiana. Instead, the trial court held a trial on the merits of Mr. Clift's partition request on March 20 and 27, 2023. However, before deciding the merits of the partition matter, the trial court heard the parties’ arguments on Ms. Fox's peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and no right of action to partition property that had previously been divided in the Massachusetts judgment. In support, Ms. Fox maintained the Massachusetts judgment should be recognized in Louisiana. The trial court then took the exceptions under advisement and proceeded with the merits of partitioning the property. On April 25, 2023, the trial court signed the Louisiana judgment partitioning the marital assets and allocating the property differently than the prior Massachusetts judgment, including a large equalizing payment due to Mr. Clift from Ms. Fox. On that same date, the trial court also ordered a stay of the Massachusetts judgment, because it was pending on appeal in Massachusetts, and denied Ms. Fox's exceptions. Ms. Fox filed a motion for new trial, which was denied.

Ms. Fox filed an application for a supervisory writ of review with this court concerning the denial of her exceptions and the stay order. She also filed a suspensive appeal from the Louisiana judgment partitioning the marital assets, which is the subject of the appeal in 2024 CA 0184. On July 28, 2023, this court granted Ms. Fox's writ in part with an order reversing the stay of the enforcement of the January 3, 2023 Massachusetts judgment. This court also noted that the trial court had not addressed the issue of whether the Massachusetts judgment should be made executory in Louisiana. Accordingly, this court remanded the matter to the trial court with “instruction to consider whether the Massachusetts judgment should be made executory.” See Clift v. Fox, 2023-0573 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/28/23), 2023 WL 4842054 (unpublished).

After the remand to the trial court, and while Ms. Fox's appeal of the Louisiana partition judgment and Mr. Clift's appeal of the Massachusetts judgment were both pending, Mr. Clift filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata in the Louisiana proceedings on September 27, 2023. Mr. Clift essentially argued that the Louisiana judgment was last-in-time as to the partition of the marital assets and, therefore, had a res judicata effect that prevented the enforcement of the Massachusetts judgment in Louisiana. Ms. Fox filed an opposition to Mr. Clift's September 27, 2023 exception. The trial court heard arguments on the petition and exception on October 17, 2023, and November 2, 2023. On November 2, 2023, the trial court signed a judgment granting Ms. Fox's petition to make the Massachusetts judgment executory in Louisiana, except the alimony award, and denying Mr. Clift's exception of res judicata. Mr. Clift suspensively appealed that ruling, which is the subject of the appeal in 2024 CA 0901. Meanwhile on September 30, 2024, the Massachusetts judgment was affirmed. See Fox v. Clift, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 1124, 242 N.E.3d 1150 (2024) (unpublished). On January 30, 2025, this court consolidated the appeals in 2024 CA 0901 and 2024 CA 0184 for oral argument and submission since both appeals arose from the same trial court number and they involved the same parties, facts, and circumstances.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The complex procedural history in these related appeals was made more problematic due to the span of time involved, the different trial court judges presiding over the various matters, and, of course, the out-of-state proceedings concerning the division of the same marital property.³ The primary issue for our consideration is whether the first-in-time and final Massachusetts judgment dividing the marital assets, and awarding alimony and attorney fees, has a preclusive effect over the second-in-time Louisiana judgment partitioning the same marital assets and ordering an equalizing payment. Our review is simplified by well-settled law.

The primary issue is governed by the United States Constitution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, mandates that a judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court of the United States that it has in the state where it is pronounced. Schultz v. Doyle, 2000-0926 (La. 1/17/01), 776 So.2d 1158, 1164. The general rule is that “a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit - even as to questions of jurisdiction – when the second court's inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.” Id. (citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963)). A state may only deny full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by a court of another state when it is shown that the court which rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter. KJMonte Investments, LLC v. Acadian Properties Austin, LLC, 2020-0204 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/20), 319 So.3d 354, 359. The relevant law to determine whether the out-of-state court had jurisdiction is the law of the state that rendered the original judgment. Lepard v. Lepard, 31,351 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98), 722 So.2d 367, 370.

There is a general presumption that a court of a sister state has jurisdiction to render the judgment in the cases before it, and it is incumbent upon the person attacking the judgment to show by clear and positive proof that the rendering court was without jurisdiction. KJMonte, 319 So.3d at 359. Additionally, a state may deny full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by a court of another state when a collateral attack on the foreign judgment would have been permitted in the state that rendered the judgment. Id. However, a litigant who seeks to deny a foreign judgment full faith and credit based on a collateral attack where rendered has the burden of proving the basis of availability of the collateral attack. Id.

In Louisiana, an out-of-state judgment may be made executory either through an ordinary proceeding, with citation and service pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2541, or through special proceedings provided in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (EFJA), found at La. R.S. 13:4241, et seq. See Cajun Beverage, Inc. v. American National Can Co., 577 So.2d 172, 172-173 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991). Ms. Fox opted to use the ordinary proceeding by filing her petition to make the Massachusetts judgment executory in the Louisiana proceedings. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2541(B) provides that a “duly authenticated copy of the judgment or decree must be annexed to the petition.” The copy of the January 3, 2023 Massachusetts judgment annexed to Ms. Fox's petition herein was a true copy certified by the assistant register of the Barnstable Division of the Probate Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The authenticity of the Massachusetts judgment is undisputed.

Given this settled law, our initial inquiry is whether Mr. Clift had clear and positive proof that the Massachusetts court did not have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter when it divided the marital assets in the January 3, 2023 Massachusetts judgment. The record reveals that Mr. Clift never actually challenged the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court nor did he offer proof of the lack of jurisdiction. We find that the Massachusetts court clearly had jurisdiction over Ms. Fox's request for an equitable division of the marital assets and request for alimony, where the parties’ matrimonial domicile was in that state and Ms. Fox continued to be a resident of that state after Mr. Clift moved to Louisiana.

Next is the issue of whether Mr. Clift could have collaterally attacked the Massachusetts judgment in the Massachusetts court. On this matter, the record clearly reveals that Mr. Clift: intentionally decided to abstain from participating in the Massachusetts proceedings, except by appeal after the judgment was rendered. Nothing prevented him from filing a defense or a limited appearance for the purpose of requesting a stay due to the ongoing Louisiana proceedings; however, he did not do so. Furthermore, it is difficult to perceive how the Massachusetts court could have granted a stay since there was no Louisiana judgment pertaining to the division of the marital assets or alimony at that time. The Massachusetts judgment was rendered essentially by default since Mr. Clift never contested the proceedings. There is a presumption in our law that due proof was made of the elements of the case. See Lewis v. Ault, 401 So.2d 1252, 1253 (La. App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 409 So.2d 615 (La. 1981) (where a default judgment recites that due proof was produced in support of the plaintiff's demands and that the evidence was in favor of the plaintiff). See also Franklin v. Franklin, 470 So.2d 634, 639 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985) (the default judgment awarding sole custody is presumed to have been based upon sufficient evidence and to be correct since there is nothing in the record to disclose the trial court erred in the award).

Finally, the mere act of Mr. Clift's filing a petition for divorce in Louisiana prior to Ms. Fox's petition for divorce being filed in Massachusetts is not a bar to the Massachusetts proceedings. This is because the pertinent issue is not whether Louisiana had jurisdiction, but whether the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction. See Lepard, 722 So.2d at 370. We also note that Mr. Clift's bare assertion that fraud and ill practice occurred in the Massachusetts court is insufficient to deprive the Massachusetts judgment of full faith and credit. See Id. at 372. We find no merit to Mr. Clift's argument that the April 25, 2023 Louisiana judgment is res judicata to the January 3, 2023 Massachusetts judgment. Mr. Clift failed to establish that the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction and he failed to establish that the Massachusetts judgment could be collaterally attacked. The trial court correctly denied Mr. Clift's exception of res judicata.

Having determined that the Massachusetts judgment is entitled to full faith and credit in Louisiana, we must give it the same preclusive effect that it would have in Massachusetts. Ms. Fox is entitled to have the entire Massachusetts judgment made executory in Louisiana, even if some parts of Ms. Fox's award may have been unenforceable in Louisiana for public policy reasons if either party sought to have it modified in some way, which they did not. See Harrah's Club v. Mijalis, 557 So.2d 1142, 1144 (La. App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 559 So.2d 1387 (La. 1990). Therefore, we find the trial court erred in limiting the Massachusetts judgment as it pertained to Ms. Fox's award of alimony in the November 2, 2023 judgment. Mr. Clift appealed from the Massachusetts judgment, but that judgment was affirmed in its entirety by the Massachusetts appellate court. No party sought further modification to any of the awards. Thus, the entire Massachusetts judgment is hereby made executory in Louisiana.

In light of our ruling, rendering judgment making the entire Massachusetts judgment executory in Louisiana in Appeal 2024 CA 0901, we vacate the April 25, 2023 Louisiana partition judgment in Appeal 2024 CA 0184. We necessarily pretermit discussion of Ms. Fox's assignments of error regarding the April 25, 2023 Louisiana judgment of partition. See Pizzuto v. Chalmette Refining, LLC, 2024-0524 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/19/26), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2026 WL 1409738, *16 n.31; Succession of Jaga, 2020-1026 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/14/21), 333 So.3d 460, 461, writ denied, 2022-00089 (La. 4/26/22), 336 So.3d 900, and writ denied, 2022-00086 (La. 4/26/22), 336 So.3d 902, and writ denied, 2022-00093 (La. 4/26/22), 347 So.3d 886.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons assigned, in Appeal 2024 CA 0901, we vacate the part of the November 2, 2023 Louisiana judgment limiting the alimony provisions of the Massachusetts judgment, and we hereby render judgment making the entire January 3, 2023 judgment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, Barnstable Division, Docket No. BA-21D0374DR, executory in the State of Louisiana. We further vacate the April 25, 2023 Louisiana partition judgment in Appeal 2024 CA 0184. All costs of these related appeals are assessed to Peter Dominic Clift.

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 LOUISIANA JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART AND JUDGMENT RENDERED MAKING THE ENTIRE JANUARY 3, 2023 MASSACHUSETTS JUDGMENT EXECUTORY IN LOUISIANA IN APPEAL 2024 CA 0901; APRIL 25, 2023 LOUISIANA JUDGMENT VACATED IN APPEAL 2024 CA 0184.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record establishes that the parties temporarily lived in other countries at times for Mr. Clift's work, but they always maintained their primary residence in Massachusetts.

2.   Mr. Clift's petition was filed in the Family Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Case No. 225,638, Division D. Ms. Fox's complaint was filed in the Probate and Family Court, Barnstable Division, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Docket No. BA-21D0374DR.

3.   The Honorable Hunter Greene presided over Ms. Fox's first exceptions filed in the Louisiana proceedings, where the Massachusetts proceedings were initially referenced. Judge Greene also granted Mr. Clift's petition for divorce in Louisiana. The Honorable Ronald D. Cox, Judge Pro Tempore, presided over Mr. Clift's motion to stay the enforcement of the Massachusetts judgment, the Louisiana judgment partitioning the marital assets, Ms. Fox's exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action, and Ms. Fox's motion for new trial. The Honorable Robert H. Morrison, III, Judge Pro Tempore, presided over Ms. Fox's petition to make the Massachusetts judgment executory in Louisiana, as well as Mr. Clift's exception of res judicata. Finally, the Honorable Kyle Russ signed the orders for appeal and converting Mr. Clift's suspensive appeal to a devolutive appeal of the November 2, 2023 judgment.

WOLFE, J.