Categories: Court Info

Enforcing Global Justice: Recognition of Foreign Judgments

Article Snapshot: Navigating Cross-Border Judgment Enforcement

For individuals and businesses involved in international disputes, obtaining a favorable court judgment is only half the battle. The critical final step is having that judgment recognized and enforced in the jurisdiction where the debtor’s assets are located. In the United States, this process is governed not by a single federal law or international treaty, but by a patchwork of state statutes and foundational common law principles. This post serves as a professional guide to understanding the complex yet predictable framework for domesticating a foreign-country judgment within the U.S. legal system.

Introduction: The Principle of Comity and State Law

A “foreign judgment” refers to a judicial decision rendered by the court of another country. Unlike judgments from a sister U.S. state, which are automatically given effect under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, a judgment from a foreign nation must go through a formal recognition process.

The entire framework rests upon the principle of international comity, a concept established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1895 case, Hilton v. Guyot. Comity is defined as the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, based on deference rather than absolute obligation.

Tip: Recognition vs. Enforcement

It is crucial to differentiate between the two terms:

Recognition: This is the court’s judicial determination that the foreign judgment is valid and conclusive (not subject to relitigation on the merits). It converts the foreign decision into a local judgment.
Enforcement: This is the practical act of collecting on the judgment, such as through garnishment or judicial sale. Enforcement can only occur after the judgment has been formally recognized.

The Uniform Acts: Governing Money Judgments

In the absence of a federal law, the process for recognizing most foreign money judgments is governed by state law. The majority of U.S. states have adopted a version of one of two model acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission:

The Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA, 1962)
The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA Revised, 2005)

These acts apply specifically to foreign-country judgments that grant or deny the recovery of a sum of money and are final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered. They expressly exclude judgments related to taxes, fines, penalties, or domestic relations matters (like divorce or support).

Under the Uniform Acts, a qualifying foreign money judgment is presumed to be recognizable and should be treated like a judgment rendered by a U.S. sister state, unless one of the statutory exceptions for non-recognition is established. The party seeking recognition has the burden of establishing the judgment meets the initial criteria, while the opposing party (the debtor) bears the burden of proving a ground for non-recognition.

Mandatory Grounds for Non-Recognition

A court must refuse to recognize a foreign judgment if the judgment debtor proves any of the following mandatory grounds apply:

Mandatory Ground	Requirement
Lack of Due Process	The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. This is a high bar, looking at the entire foreign judicial system.
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction	The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as judged by U.S. constitutional standards.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction	The foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. This defense is also satisfied if U.S. courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.

In addition to these grounds, the judgment must be final and conclusive in the country where it was rendered. If an appeal is pending in the foreign jurisdiction, the U.S. court may choose to stay the recognition proceeding until the appeal is resolved.

Discretionary Grounds for Non-Recognition

A court may refuse to recognize the foreign judgment if the judgment debtor establishes any of the following discretionary grounds:

The defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding in the foreign court in sufficient time to enable them to defend.
The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The cause of action or the judgment itself is repugnant to the public policy of the state or of the United States.
The foreign judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.
The foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action (based on the 2005 Act).
The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court (based on the 2005 Act).
In cases of an agreement between the parties, the proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to a valid arbitration agreement or choice-of-court agreement.

Caution: The SPEECH Act and Libel Judgments

Congress passed the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act to specifically address “libel tourism”.

This federal law effectively makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts unless the foreign country’s judgment complies with the free speech protections of the U.S. First Amendment. This is a key example of how U.S. public policy can trump a foreign court’s ruling.

The Path to Enforcement: The Procedure

To recognize and enforce a foreign judgment in the United States, the judgment creditor must initiate a new legal action in a court in the U.S. state where recognition is sought. This is often filed in a state court, as there is no universal federal jurisdiction for this matter.

The procedure is usually commenced by filing a suit seeking recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment. In states that have adopted the Revised Act, recognition can also be sought through a motion for summary judgment or raised as an affirmative defense in a pending action. The specific documents generally required include a certified copy of the foreign judgment and an affidavit from the judgment holder providing relevant details.

Once the judgment is recognized by the local court, it becomes a domestic judgment of that U.S. state. At this point, it is enforceable in the same manner as any other local judgment, giving the creditor access to state-based collection remedies, such as seizing assets, garnishing wages, or placing judicial liens.

Case Principle: Hilton v. Guyot (1895)

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hilton v. Guyot established that the recognition of foreign judgments is fundamentally based on comity and, critically, on the concept of reciprocity.

The court held that a foreign judgment would only be conclusive in the U.S. if the rendering foreign nation would similarly give conclusive effect to U.S. judgments. While this reciprocity requirement has been largely abandoned by most U.S. states following the adoption of the UFMJRA, the principles of due process and fairness outlined in the case remain the foundation of modern recognition law across the United States.

Summary: The Three Pillars of Recognition

Successfully navigating the recognition of a foreign judgment requires careful consideration of three main legal pillars:

The Legal Basis: Confirmation that the judgment is a final, conclusive, and enforceable money judgment falling under a state’s Uniform Act or common law.
Jurisdictional Integrity: Ensuring the foreign court had proper personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant according to U.S. constitutional standards.
Procedural Fairness: Verifying that the foreign judicial system and the specific proceedings complied with fundamental U.S. due process standards, including timely notice and the absence of fraud.

International Judgment Enforcement at a Glance

No Treaty: The U.S. does not have a comprehensive bilateral or multilateral treaty for recognizing general foreign judgments, relying instead on state law and comity.
State Law Dominates: The process is governed by individual state laws, typically a version of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA).
Mandatory Denial: Recognition must be denied if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction or if the judicial system failed to meet U.S. due process standards.
The Result: A recognized foreign judgment is “domesticated,” making it fully enforceable against the debtor’s U.S. assets using all local collection remedies.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Is there a federal law for recognizing foreign judgments?

No. There is no comprehensive federal statute or treaty in force between the United States and any other country on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of general judgments. Recognition is handled state-by-state under the principles of comity and the Uniform Acts.

What is the significance of “comity”?

Comity is the principle of deference that U.S. courts afford to the judicial decisions of a foreign nation. It dictates that a U.S. court will generally recognize a foreign judgment if the foreign trial was full, fair, and conducted by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as the process aligns with U.S. standards of due process.

Does the Uniform Act apply to divorce decrees?

No. Both versions of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act specifically exclude judgments rendered in connection with domestic relations, such as divorce, support, or maintenance. These types of judgments are typically handled under separate state-specific laws and common law principles.

Can a U.S. court deny recognition if the foreign court had jurisdiction?

Yes, a court may deny recognition even if the foreign court had jurisdiction. Non-recognition is mandatory if the entire foreign judicial system lacks due process, and it is discretionary if grounds like fraud, lack of sufficient notice, or a conflict with U.S. public policy (e.g., the SPEECH Act) are present.

How long do I have to seek recognition?

The statute of limitations is set by the individual state law. For states adopting the revised 2005 Uniform Act, an action to recognize a foreign-country judgment must be commenced within the earlier of the time during which the foreign judgment is effective in the foreign country or 15 years from the date the judgment became effective in the foreign country.

Disclaimer

This content was generated by an AI and is for informational purposes only. The field of foreign judgment recognition is highly complex and fact-specific. It is critical to consult with a qualified Legal Expert who specializes in international litigation in the relevant U.S. state for advice specific to your situation. This information does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.

Recognition of foreign judgments, Enforcement of foreign judgments, UFMJRA, Hilton v. Guyot, International Comity, Foreign Money Judgment, Due Process

geunim