Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 36A.004 – Standards for Recognition of Foreign-Country Judgment
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Subsections (b) and (c), a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this chapter applies.
(b) A court of this state may 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;
(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.
Terms Used In Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 36A.004
- 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.
- Trial: A hearing that takes place when the defendant pleads "not guilty" and witnesses are required to come to court to give evidence.
- United States: includes a department, bureau, or other agency of the United States of America. See Texas Government Code 311.005
(c) A court of this state is not required 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 the party’s 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 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 the foreign court;
(6) jurisdiction was based only on personal service and 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;
(8) the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law; or
(9) it is established that the foreign country in which the judgment was rendered does not recognize judgments rendered in this state that, but for the fact that they are rendered in this state, would constitute foreign-country judgments to which this chapter would apply under Section 36A.003.
(d) A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in Subsection (b) or (c) exists.