Iowa Code 626B.104 – Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
Terms Used In Iowa Code 626B.104
- Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
- following: when used by way of reference to a chapter or other part of a statute mean the next preceding or next following chapter or other part. See Iowa Code 4.1
- Fraud: Intentional deception resulting in injury to another.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- state: when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the territories, and the words "United States" may include the said district and territories. See Iowa Code 4.1
- Trial: A hearing that takes place when the defendant pleads "not guilty" and witnesses are required to come to court to give evidence.
626B.104 Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this chapter applies.
2. A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following applies:
a. 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.
b. The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
c. The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
3. A court of this state need not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply:
a. The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.
b. The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case.
c. The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States.
d. The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.
e. The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign court.
f. In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
g. The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
h. The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
4. A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection 2 or 3 exists.
2010 Acts, ch 1053, §4, 12
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this chapter applies.
2. A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following applies:
a. 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.
b. The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
c. The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
3. A court of this state need not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply:
a. The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.
b. The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case.
c. The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States.
d. The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.
e. The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign court.
f. In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
g. The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
h. The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
4. A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection 2 or 3 exists.
2010 Acts, ch 1053, §4, 12