New Jersey Statutes 2A:49A-16.4. Recognition by courts; exceptions
Terms Used In New Jersey Statutes 2A:49A-16.4
- Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
- 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.
- Private law: A private bill enacted into law. Private laws have restricted applicability, often addressing immigration and naturalization issues affecting individuals.
- State: extends to and includes any State, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia and the Canal Zone. See New Jersey Statutes 1:1-2
- Trial: A hearing that takes place when the defendant pleads "not guilty" and witnesses are required to come to court to give evidence.
b. A court of this State shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if:
(1) 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, as determined by the court using standards developed by the American Law Institute and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law to govern resolution of transnational disputes;
(2) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or
(3) the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
c. A court of this State may determine, in its discretion, not to recognize a foreign-country judgment if:
(1) 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;
(2) the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
(3) 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;
(4) the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;
(5) 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;
(6) in the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;
(7) the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment; or
(8) the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law, as determined by the court using standards developed by the American Law Institute and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law to govern resolution of transnational disputes.
d. A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment shall have the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection b. or c. of this section exists, except that where a foreign-country judgment has been rendered in default of appearance of the defendant, the party seeking recognition shall have the burden of establishing that:
(1) the rendering court had jurisdiction over the defendant in accordance with the law of the country of origin of judgment;
(2) the defendant was served with initiating process in accordance with the law of the country of origin; and
(3) the rendering court had jurisdiction over the defendant on a basis provided pursuant to section 5 of this act.
L.2017, c.365, s.4.