Appellants challenged an enforcement judgment that added respondents as judgment debtors, arguing that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Respondent did not bring appellants into the action as parties and did not serve them with notice of its motion or the hearing date. The District Court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because the post-judgment motion was a proceeding in rem. The Court of Appeals held that exercising quasi in rem jurisdiction over property that had been fraudulently transferred does not withstand due-process scrutiny. Vacated.
A14-1916 Schwie v. Armco Unlimited, Inc. (Hennepin County)