answered his phone calls, that BOA was interested in selling the Residence to Atteberry; and (3) even though the Wrights defaulted on their mortgage and owed a substantial money judgment to BOA, that BOA would sell the Residence to their proxy at a further substantial loss. In light of the absence of any evidence of intent to mislead the Wrights, we need not address this point. D. Motion for Summary Judgment on BOA’s Counterclaim The district court granted BOA’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim against the Wrights. In its counterclaim, BOA sought to enforce its state court judgment, updating the amount due for the accrual of interest on the judgment. Federal courts are authorized to enforce state court judgments. See Berke v. Northcutt, 798 F.2d 468, 468 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, BOA’s motion for summary judgment
holding that for federal court to grant full faith and credit to state court judgment state proceedings must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the fourteenth amendments due process clause holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state holding that a federal court must enforce a state court judgment under the full faith and credit statute where diversity jurisdiction exists