In the United States, the recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments is generally governed by state law. Most states have adopted one of two Uniform Acts that provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments subject to certain exceptions, including lack of jurisdiction, fraud, and public policy. There is also a federal statute, the SPEECH Act, that governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments. The United States has signed two judgments treaties, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, but neither has yet been sent to the Senate for ratification.
A Primer on Foreign Judgments
In the United States, the recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments is generally governed by state law. Nevertheless, the law on foreign judgments is fairly uniform throughout the United States because most states have adopted one of two Uniform Acts. These Acts establish a presumption that final, conclusive, and enforceable foreign judgments are entitled to…
Continue ReadingSystemic Due Process and the Hague Judgments Convention
The State Department is exploring ratification of the Hague Judgments Convention (HJC) and Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (COCA). It has announced a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law for October 24-25 to discuss these conventions (as well as the Singapore Convention on mediation) and how they might be implemented. As…
Continue ReadingReciprocity and the Hague Judgments Convention
In a prior post, I reported on recent developments that offer a basis for (cautious) optimism that the United States may soon take the necessary steps to ratify the Hague Judgments Convention (HJC). In this post, I explore how the issue of reciprocity might affect the ratification process. Reciprocity Reciprocity refers to the mutual recognition…
Continue ReadingHow (Not) to Decide Whether a Foreign Judgment Is Preclusive
Foreign judgments are generally entitled to recognition in the United States. Beneath that simple statement, however, lie many complexities. When lawyers and judges do not understand those complexities, they are likely to go astray. That seems to be what happened in Wash v. Finch, a recent federal decision in the District of New Jersey. This…
Continue Reading