Norkan Lodge Co. v. Gillum - 587 F. Supp. 1457 (N.D. Tex. 1984)

Rule:

The Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (Act), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 2328b-6, § 3, provides that the Act applies to any foreign country judgment that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered. Section 4 of the Act provides that except as provided in § 5 of the Act, a foreign country judgment meeting the requirements of § 3 is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. The foreign country judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state that is entitled to full faith and credit.Section 5(a) provides for grounds for nonrecognition. A foreign country judgment is not conclusive if; (1) the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; (2) the foreign country court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) the foreign country did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Application of § 5(a) to a foreign country judgment is not discretionary with the court.

Facts:

The judgment creditor received a judgment against the judgment debtor in a Canadian court. The judgment debtor did file a pleading in the Canadian action, but he failed to appear at the trial and he did not appeal the judgment. The judgment creditor initiated an action in Texas to enforce the judgment under the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (the Act), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 2328b-6. The judgment creditor filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Issue:

Was the Canadian judgment enforceable under the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted the judgment creditor's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the Canadian court did not lack jurisdiction of the judgment debtor as to create nonrecognition of the judgement under the Act, § 5(a)(2), because a review of his pleadings in the Canadian case showed that he did not ever assert that that court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Canadian judgment was not procured fraudulently because the alleged fraud issues were actually credibility questions and fact issues resolved in a legitimate manner by the Canadian court. The Canadian judgment was not repugnant under the Act, § 5(b)(2), because the causes of action alleged, trespass and conversion, were not repugnant to Texas policy, nor did the award of damages offend Texas public policy.