Uniform Foreign Money Claims Act Law & Legal Definition The Uniform Foreign Money Claims Act

(UFMCA) was created by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL) in 1989. This act simplifies international business by allowing courts in the United States to accept or render judgments valued in foreign currency. UFMCA allows any claimant to assert a claim in foreign money. It also allows any opposing party to contest such a claim, and to assert and prove that different money should be the basis for the claim. UFMCA serves the goals of permitting claims in foreign currency and of establishing a fair conversion to dollars. It provides for temporary valuations of foreign money claims in dollars for taking certain provisional steps in an action, like seizing or restraining assets pursuant to a writ of attachment, assessing costs of litigation, or determining the amount of a surety bond. The time for making a temporary valuation is the banking day next preceding the filing of the application for the specific process of the court, and the rate is the bankoffered spot rate of exchange prevailing on that day. Many states in the U.S. have adopted the provisions of the act. Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act Law & Legal Definition The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act was created by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL) in 2005. This act provides updated rules and procedures for the recognition of foreign judgments. It is a revision of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962, which simplified international business by recognizing money judgments obtained in other nations for the purpose of enforcement. The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country judgment. The recognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action is filed for the purpose. If the judgment meets the statutory standards, the state court will recognize it. It then may be enforced as if it is a judgment of another state of the United States. Enforcement may then proceed, which means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount.

Many states like California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Montana has adopted the act. Massachusetts adopted it in 2010.

25-9-702. Definitions. In this part, the following definitions apply: (1) "Action" means a judicial proceeding or arbitration in which a payment in money may be awarded or enforced with respect to a foreign-money claim. (2) "Bank-offered spot rate" means the spot rate of exchange at which a bank will sell foreign money at a spot rate. (3) "Conversion date" means the banking day preceding the date on which money, in accordance with this part, is: (a) paid to a claimant in an action or distribution proceeding; (b) paid to the official designated by law to enforce a judgment or award on behalf of a claimant; or (c) used to recoup, setoff, or counterclaim in different money in an action or distribution proceeding. (4) "Distribution proceeding" means a judicial or nonjudicial proceeding for the distribution of a fund in which one or more foreign-money claims are asserted and includes an accounting, an assignment for the benefit of creditors, a foreclosure, the liquidation or rehabilitation of a corporation or other entity, and the distribution of an estate, trust, or other fund. (5) "Foreign money" means money other than money of the United States of America. (6) "Foreign-money claim" means a claim upon an obligation to pay or a claim for recovery of a loss, expressed in or measured by a foreign money. (7) "Money" means a medium of exchange for the payment of obligations or a store of value authorized or adopted by a government or by intergovernmental agreement. (8) "Money of the claim" means the money determined as proper pursuant to 25-9-705. (9) "Person" means an individual, corporation, government or governmental

subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, joint venture, partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity. (10) "Rate of exchange" means the rate at which money of one country may be converted into money of another country in a free financial market convenient to or reasonably usable by a person obligated to pay or to state a rate of conversion. If separate rates of exchange apply to different kinds of transactions, the term means the rate applicable to the particular transaction giving rise to the foreign-money claim. (11) "Spot rate" means the rate of exchange at which foreign money is sold by a bank or other dealer in foreign exchange for immediate or next day availability or for settlement by immediate payment in cash or equivalent, by charge to an account, or by an agreed delayed settlement not exceeding 2 days. (12) "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 152, L. 1993. SENATE BILL NO. 1022 View Daily Data Tracking History View Bill Text View Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact Text to be added within a bill has been marked with Bold and Underline. Text to be removed has been marked with Strikethrough and Italic. How these codes are actually displayed will vary based on the browser software you are using. This sentence is marked with bold and underline to show added text. This sentence is marked with strikethrough and italic, indicating text to be removed. Daily Data Tracking History S1022................................................by JUDICIARY AND RULES FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT - Adds to existing law to provide for foreign-money claims; to define terms; to provide scope and for variation of the act by agreement; to provide for determining the money of the claim; to provide for determining the amount of the money of certain contract claims; to provide for the assertion and defense of a foreign-money claim;

to provide for judgments and awards on foreign-money claims; to provide for times of money conversion; to provide for conversions of foreign money in distribution proceedings; to provide for prejudgment interest and judgment interest; to provide for enforcement of foreign judgments; to provide for determining the United States dollar value of foreign-money claims for limited purposes; to provide for the effect of current revalorization; to provide for supplementary general principles of law and for uniformity of application and construction; to provide a short title; and to provide for application. 01/18 Senate intro - 1st rdg - to printing 01/19 Rpt prt - to Com/HuRes 02/07 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg 02/08 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg 02/09 3rd rdg - PASSED - 33-0-1(1 vacant) AYES -- Andreason, Boatright, Branch(Bartlett), Brandt, Bunderson, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Danielson, Darrington, Davis, Deide, Dunklin, Frasure, Geddes, Goedde, Hawkins, Ingram, Ipsen, King-Barrutia, Lee, Lodge, Noh, Richardson, Risch, Sandy, Schroeder, Sorensen, Stegner, Stennett, Thorne, Wheeler, Whitworth, Williams, NAYS -- None Absent and excused -- Keough Vacant -- Dist. #4 Floor Sponsor -- Davis Title apvd - to House 02/12 House intro - 1st rdg - to Jud 03/22 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg 03/23 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg 03/28 3rd rdg - PASSED - 59-1-10 AYES -- Barraclough, Barrett, Bedke, Bieter, Black, Boe, Bolz, Bradford, Bruneel, Callister, Campbell, Chase, Clark, Collins, Deal, Denney, Ellis, Ellsworth, Eskridge, Field(13), Field(20), Hadley, Harwood, Henbest(Farley), Higgins, Hornbeck, Jaquet, Jones, Kendell, Kunz, Lake, Langford, Loertscher, Mader, McKague, Meyer, Montgomery, Mortensen, Moss, Moyle, Pearce, Pomeroy, Raybould, Roberts, Robison, Sali, Schaefer, Sellman, Shepherd, Smith, Smylie, Stevenson, Stone, Tilman, Trail, Wheeler, Wood, Young(Young), Mr. Speaker

NAYS -- Hammond Absent and excused -- Bell, Crow, Cuddy, Gagner, Gould, Hansen, Kellogg, Marley, Pischner, Ridinger Floor Sponsor -- Sali Title apvd - to Senate 03/29 To enrol Rpt enrol - Pres signed 03/30 Sp signed - to Governor 04/04 Governor signed Session Law Chapter 329 Effective: 07/01/01 Bill Text

|||| LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Fifty-sixth Legislature First Regular Session - 2001 IN THE SENATE SENATE BILL NO. 1022 BY JUDICIARY AND RULES COMMITTEE

||||

1 AN ACT 2 RELATING TO THE UNIFORM FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT; AMENDING TITLE 10, IDAHO 3 CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 15, TITLE 10, IDAHO CODE, TO DEFINE 4 TERMS, TO PROVIDE SCOPE, TO PROVIDE FOR VARIATION BY AGREEMENT, TO PROVIDE 5 FOR DETERMINING THE MONEY OF THE CLAIM, TO PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING THE 6 AMOUNT OF THE MONEY OF CERTAIN CONTRACT CLAIMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ASSER7 TION AND DEFENSE OF A FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIM, TO PROVIDE FOR JUDGMENTS AND

8 AWARDS ON FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS, TO PROVIDE FOR TIMES OF MONEY CONVERSION 9 AND TO PROVIDE FOR FORM OF JUDGMENT, TO PROVIDE FOR CONVERSIONS OF FOREIGN 10 MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS, TO PROVIDE FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND 11 JUDGMENT INTEREST, TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, TO 12 PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING THE UNITED STATES DOLLAR VALUE OF FOREIGN-MONEY 13 CLAIMS FOR LIMITED PURPOSES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EFFECT OF CURRENT 14 REVALORIZATION, TO PROVIDE FOR SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, TO 15 PROVIDE FOR UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION, TO PROVIDE A SHORT 16 TITLE, TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHAPTER APPLIES 17 TO ACTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 18 DATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 19 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

20 SECTION 1. That Title 10, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended 21 by the addition thereto of a NEW CHAPTER, to be known and designated as Chap22 ter 15, Title 10, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 23 24 CHAPTER 15 UNIFORM FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT

25 10-1501. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter: 26 (1) "Action" means a judicial proceeding or arbitration in which a pay27 ment in money may be awarded or enforced with respect to a foreign-money 28 claim.

29 (2) "Bank-offered spot rate" means the spot rate of exchange at which a 30 bank will sell foreign money at a spot rate. 31 (3) "Conversion date" means the banking day next preceding the date on 32 which money, in accordance with this chapter, is: 33 (i) Paid to a claimant in an action or distribution proceeding; 34 (ii) Paid to the official designated by law to enforce a judgment or 35 award on behalf of a claimant; or 36 (iii) Used to recoup, set-off or counterclaim in different moneys in an 37 action or distribution proceeding. 38 (4) "Distribution proceeding" means a judicial or nonjudicial proceeding 39 for the distribution of a fund in which one (1) or more foreign-money claims 40 is asserted and includes an accounting, an assignment for the benefit of cred41 itors, a foreclosure, the liquidation or rehabilitation of a corporation or 42 other entity, and the distribution of an estate, trust or other fund. 2 1 (5) "Foreign money" means money other than money of the United States of 2 America. 3 (6) "Foreign-money claim" means a claim upon an obligation to pay, or a 4 claim for recovery of a loss, expressed in or measured by a foreign money. 5 (7) "Money" means a medium of exchange for the payment of obligations or 6 a store of value authorized or adopted by a government or by inter7 governmental agreement. 8 (8) "Money of the claim" means the money determined as proper pursuant to 9 section 10-1504, Idaho Code.

10 (9) "Person" means an individual, a corporation, government or governmen11 tal subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, joint venture, part12 nership, association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common inter13 est, or any other legal or commercial entity. 14 (10) "Rate of exchange" means the rate at which money of one (1) country 15 may be converted into money of another country in a free financial market con16 venient to or reasonably usable by a person obligated to pay or to state a 17 rate of conversion. If separate rates of exchange apply to different kinds of 18 transactions, the term means the rate applicable to the particular transaction 19 giving rise to the foreign-money claim. 20 (11) "Spot rate" means the rate of exchange at which foreign money is sold 21 by a bank or other dealer in foreign exchange for immediate or next day avail22 ability or for settlement by immediate payment in cash or equivalent, by 23 charge to an account, or by an agreed delayed settlement not exceeding two (2) 24 days. 25 (12) "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, 26 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or insular possession subject 27 to the jurisdiction of the United States. 28 10-1502. SCOPE. (a) This chapter applies only to a foreign-money claim in 29 an action or distribution proceeding. 30 (b) This chapter applies to foreign-money issues even if other law under 31 the conflict of laws rules of this state applies to other issues in the action

32

or distribution proceeding.

33 10-1503. VARIATION BY AGREEMENT. (a) The effect of this chapter may be 34 varied by agreement of the parties made before or after commencement of an 35 action or distribution proceeding or the entry of judgment. 36 (b) Parties to a transaction may agree upon the money to be used in a 37 transaction giving rise to a foreign-money claim and may agree to use differ38 ent moneys for different aspects of the transaction. Stating the price in a 39 foreign money for one (1) aspect of a transaction does not alone require the 40 use of that money for other aspects of the transaction. 41 10-1504. DETERMINING MONEY OF THE CLAIM. (a) The money in which the par42 ties to a transaction have agreed that payment is to be made is the proper 43 money of the claim for payment. 44 (b) If the parties to a transaction have not otherwise agreed, the proper 45 money of the claim, as in each case may be appropriate, is the money: 46 (1) Regularly used between the parties as a matter of usage or course of 47 dealing; 48 (2) Used at the time of a transaction in international trade, by trade 49 usage or common practice, for valuing or settling transactions in the par50 ticular commodity or service involved; or 51 (3) In which the loss was ultimately felt or will be incurred by the 52 party claimant. 3

1 10-1505. DETERMINING AMOUNT OF THE MONEY OF CERTAIN CONTRACT CLAIMS. (a) 2 If an amount contracted to be paid in a foreign money is measured by a speci3 fied amount of a different money, the amount to be paid is determined on the 4 conversion date. 5 (b) If an amount contracted to be paid in a foreign money is to be mea6 sured by a different money at the rate of exchange prevailing on a date before 7 default, that rate of exchange applies only to payments made within a reason8 able time after default, not exceeding thirty (30) days. Thereafter, conver9 sion is made at the bank-offered spot rate on the conversion date. 10 (c) A monetary claim is neither usurious nor unconscionable because the 11 agreement on which it is based provides that the amount of the debtor's obli12 gation to be paid in the debtor's money, when received by the creditor, must 13 equal a specified amount of the foreign money of the country of the creditor. 14 If, because of unexcused delay in payment of a judgment or award, the amount 15 received by the creditor does not equal the amount of the foreign money speci16 fied in the agreement, the court or arbitrator shall amend the judgment or 17 award accordingly. 18 10-1506. ASSERTING AND DEFENDING FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIM. (a) A person may 19 assert a claim in a specified foreign money. If a foreign-money claim is not 20 asserted, the claimant makes the claim in United States dollars. 21 (b) An opposing party may allege and prove that a claim, in whole or in 22 part, is in a different money than that asserted by the claimant.

23 (c) A person may assert a defense, set-off, recoupment or counterclaim in 24 any money without regard to the money of other claims. 25 (d) The determination of the proper money of the claim is a question of 26 law. 27 10-1507. JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS ON FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS -- TIMES OF MONEY 28 CONVERSION -- FORM OF JUDGMENT. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of 29 this section, a judgment or award on a foreign-money claim must be stated in 30 an amount of the money of the claim. 31 (b) A judgment or award on a foreign-money claim is payable in that for32 eign money or, at the option of the debtor, in the amount of United States 33 dollars which will purchase that foreign money on the conversion date at a 34 bank-offered spot rate. 35 (c) Assessed costs must be entered in United States dollars. 36 (d) Each payment in United States dollars must be accepted and credited 37 on a judgment or award on a foreign-money claim in the amount of the foreign 38 money that could be purchased by the dollars at a bank-offered spot rate of 39 exchange at or near the close of business on the conversion date for that pay40 ment. 41 (e) A judgment or award made in an action or distribution proceeding on 42 both (i) a defense, set-off, recoupment or counterclaim and (ii) the adverse 43 party's claim, must be netted by converting the money of the smaller into the 44 money of the larger, and by subtracting the smaller from the larger, and spec45 ify the rates of exchange used.

46 (f) A judgment substantially in the following form complies with subsec47 tion (a) of this section: 48 IT IS ADJUDGED AND ORDERED, that Defendant ....... (insert name) ....... 49 pay to Plaintiff ....... (insert name)....... the sum of ....... (insert 50 amount in the foreign money) ....... plus interest on that sum at the rate 51 of ....... (insert rate - see section 10-1509, Idaho Code) ....... percent 52 a year or, at the option of the judgment debtor, the number of United 53 States dollars which will purchase the ....... (insert name of foreign 4 1 money) ....... with interest due, at a bank-offered spot rate at or near 2 the close of business on the banking day next before the day of payment, 3 together with assessed costs of ....... (insert amount) ....... United 4 States dollars. 5 (g) If a contract claim is of the type covered by section 10-1505(a) or 6 (b), Idaho Code, the judgment or award must be entered for the amount of money 7 stated to measure the obligation to be paid in the money specified for payment 8 or, at the option of the debtor, the number of United States dollars which 9 will purchase the computed amount of the money of payment on the conversion 10 date at a bank-offered spot rate. 11 (h) A judgment must be filed with the district court, and recorded with 12 the county recorder, in foreign money in the same manner, and has the same 13 effect as a lien, as other judgments. It may be discharged by payment. 14 10-1508. CONVERSIONS OF FOREIGN MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION PROCEEDING. The

15 rate of exchange prevailing at or near the close of business on the day the 16 distribution proceeding is initiated governs all exchanges of foreign money in 17 a distribution proceeding. A foreign-money claimant in a distribution proceed18 ing shall assert its claim in the named foreign money and show the amount of 19 United States dollars resulting from a conversion as of the date the proceed20 ing was initiated. 21 10-1509. PREJUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT INTEREST. (a) With respect to a 22 foreign-money claim, recovery of prejudgment or preaward interest and the rate 23 of interest to be applied in the action or distribution proceeding, except as 24 provided in subsection (b) of this section, are matters of the substantive law 25 governing the right to recovery under the conflict-of-laws rules of this 26 state. 27 (b) The court or arbitrator shall increase or decrease the amount of 28 prejudgment or preaward interest otherwise payable in a judgment or award in 29 foreign money to the extent required by the law of this state governing a 30 failure to make or accept an offer of settlement or offer of judgment, or con31 duct by a party or its attorney causing undue delay or expense. 32 (c) A judgment or award on a foreign-money claim bears interest at the 33 rate applicable to judgments of this state. 34 10-1510. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. (a) If an action is brought to 35 enforce a judgment of another jurisdiction expressed in a foreign money and

36 the judgment is recognized in this state as enforceable, the enforcing judg37 ment must be entered as provided in section 10-1507, Idaho Code, whether or 38 not the foreign judgment confers an option to pay in an equivalent amount of 39 United States dollars. 40 (b) A foreign judgment may be filed in accordance with any rule or stat41 ute of this state providing a procedure for its recognition and enforcement. 42 (c) A satisfaction or partial payment made upon the foreign judgment, on 43 proof thereof, must be credited against the amount of foreign money specified 44 in the judgment, notwithstanding the entry of judgment in this state. 45 (d) A judgment entered on a foreign-money claim only in United States 46 dollars in another state must be enforced in this state in United States dol47 lars only. 48 10-1511. DETERMINING UNITED STATES DOLLAR VALUE OF FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS 49 FOR LIMITED PURPOSES. (a) Computations under this section are for the limited 50 purposes of the section and do not affect computation of the United States 51 dollar equivalent of the money of the judgment for the purpose of payment. 5 1 (b) For the limited purpose of facilitating the enforcement of provi2 sional remedies in an action, the value in United States dollars of assets to 3 be seized or restrained pursuant to a writ of attachment, garnishment, execu-

4 tion or other legal process, the amount of United States dollars at issue for 5 assessing costs, or the amount of United States dollars involved for a surety 6 bond or other court required undertaking, must be ascertained as provided in 7 subsections (c) and (d) of this section. 8 (c) A party seeking process, costs, bond or other undertaking under sub9 section (b) of this section shall compute in United States dollars the amount 10 of the foreign money claimed from a bank-offered spot rate prevailing at or 11 near the close of business on the banking day next preceding the filing of a 12 request or application for the issuance of process or for the determination of 13 costs, or an application for a bond or other court required undertaking. 14 (d) A party seeking the process, costs, bond or other undertaking under 15 subsection (b) of this section shall file with each request or application an 16 affidavit or certificate executed in good faith by its counsel or a bank offi17 cer, stating the market quotation used and how it was obtained, and setting 18 forth the calculation. Affected court officials incur no liability, after a 19 filing of the affidavit or certificate, for acting as if the judgment were in 20 the amount of United States dollars stated in the affidavit or certificate. 21 10-1512. EFFECT OF CURRENT REVALORIZATION. (a) If, after an obligation is 22 expressed or a loss is incurred in a foreign money, the country issuing or 23 adopting that money substitutes a new money in place of that money, the obli24 gation or the loss is treated as if expressed or incurred in the new money at

25 the rate of conversion the issuing country establishes for the payment of like 26 obligations or losses denominated in the former money. 27 (b) If substitution under subsection (a) of this section occurs after a 28 judgment or award is entered on a foreign-money claim, the court or arbitrator 29 shall amend the judgment or award by a like conversion of the former money. 30 10-1513. SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW. Unless displaced by 31 particular provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, 32 including the law merchant, and the law relative to capacity to contract, 33 principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, 34 mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating causes supplement its 35 provisions. 36 10-1514. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. This chapter shall 37 be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the 38 law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it. 39 10-1515. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the "Uniform Foreign40 Money Claims Act." 41 10-1516. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this chapter are hereby declared 42 to be severable and if any provision of this chapter or the application of 43 such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any rea44 son, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions 45 of this chapter.

46 10-1517. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION. This chapter applies to actions and dis47 tribution proceedings commenced after its effective date. 48 July SECTION 2. This act shall be in full force and effect on and after 6 1 1, 2001. Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE RS 10615C1 This legislation enacts the Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act ("UFMCA"). Except for minor revisions to accommodate existing Idaho law, UFMCA was drafted and approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and is recommended by the Idaho Uniform Law Commission for adoption in Idaho. The Act has been approved by the American Bar Association. UFMCA is intended to facilitate determination and payment of pecuniary claims for loss or damage properly measured in money other than that of the United States when involved in litigation or quasi-litigated situations. It does not apply to voluntary payments of such obligations. Pursuant to UFMCA, courts are authorized to appraise loss or damage in terms of the money agreed to by the parties or in which the loss was felt. FISCAL IMPACT This Act will have no fiscal impact on the General Fund. Contact Name: Rex Blackburn Evans, Keane LLP Phone: (208) 384-1800

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/FISCAL NOTE

S1022

Ch. 18 Recognition & Enforcement of Judgments II. The Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act
A. In 1962, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State

Laws approved and recommended for enactment the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA or the Act). See 13 U.L.A. 39 (1986). At the time, it was common for judgments rendered in U.S. courts not to be recognized abroad because of the concern held by other nations that judgments by their courts would not be recognized in a U.S. court. The Act codified the common law applied in the majority of U.S. states. The expectation was that, by adopting a standard, U.S. judgments would more likely be recognized abroad. See also Chapter 6 of this Guide, which also discusses the UFMJRA. B. Many states in the U.S., including New York, have adopted the Act or some parts of it. Currently, more than half the states have adopted some version of the Act. 1. The New York statute can be found in Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.
2. The UFMJRA was revised and updated in 2005 to clarify

provisions and correct problems created by the interpretation of provisions by courts over the years. Since its revision, the 2005 Act has been adopted by Idaho and Nevada, and has been introduced for adoption in California and Michigan. See http://www.nccusl.org/Update/. C. The UFMJRA applies to non-U.S. court judgments granting or denying the recovery of a sum of money. TITLE 10

Courts and Judicial Procedure Procedure CHAPTER 48. UNIFORM FOREIGN-COUNTRY MONEY JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT 4801. Definitions. In this chapter: (1) "Foreign country" means a government other than: a. The United States; b. A state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; or c. Any other government with regard to which the decision in this State as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government's courts is initially subject to determination under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution [U.S. Const. art. IV, 1]. (2) "Foreign-country judgment" means a judgment of a court of a foreign country. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 2.; 4802. Applicability. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, this chapter applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that the judgment: (1) Grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; and (2) Under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive, and enforceable. (b) This chapter does not apply to a foreign-country judgment, even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to the extent that the judgment is:

(1) A judgment for taxes; (2) A fine or other penalty; or (3) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations. (c) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that this chapter applies to the foreign-country judgment. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 2.; 4803. Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, 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. (c) A court of this State need not 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. (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) of this section exists. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 2.; 4804. Grounds for non-recognition. (71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; repealed by 78 Del. Laws, c. 65 3, eff. June 28, 2011.) 4805. Personal jurisdiction. (a) A foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if: (1) The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign country; (2) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceedings other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant;

(3) The defendant, prior to the commencement of the proceedings, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved; (4) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country; (5) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceedings in the foreign court involved a cause of action arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country; or (6) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceedings involved a cause of action arising out of such operation. (b) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subsection (a) of this section is not exclusive. The courts of this State may recognize bases of personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subsection (a) of this section as sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 4-9.; 4806. Stay of proceedings pending appeal of foreign-country judgment. If a party establishes that an appeal from a foreign-country judgment is pending or will be taken, the court may stay any proceedings with regard to the foreign-country judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the appellant has had sufficient time to prosecute the appeal and has failed to do so. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 10.; 4807. Savings clause. This chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this chapter.

71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 11.; 4808. Uniformity of interpretation. In applying and construing this chapter, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it. 71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 12.; 4809. Procedure for recognition of foreign-country judgment. (a) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment. (b) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought in a pending action, the issue of recognition may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense. 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.; 4810. Effect of recognition of foreign-country judgment. If the court in a proceeding under 4809 of this title finds that the foreign-country judgment is entitled to recognition under this chapter then, to the extent that the foreign-country judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, the foreign-country judgment is: (1) Conclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit in this State would be conclusive; and (2) Enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this State. 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.; 4811. Statute of limitations. An action to recognize a foreign-country judgment must be commenced within the earlier of the time during which the foreign-country judgment is

effective in the foreign country or 15 years from the date that the foreigncountry judgment became effective in the foreign country. 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.; 4812. Effective date. (a) This chapter takes effect on June 28, 2011. (b) This chapter applies to all actions commenced on or after June 28, 2011, in which the issue of recognition of a foreign-country judgment is raised. 78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.;

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1713-1724

1713. This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. 1714. As used in this chapter: (a) "Foreign country" means a government other than any of the following: (1) The United States. (2) A state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States. (3) Any other government with regard to which the decision in this state as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government's courts is initially subject to determination under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. (b) "Foreign-country judgment" means a judgment of a court of a foreign country. "Foreign-country judgment" includes a judgment by any Indian tribe recognized by the government of the United States.

1715. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), this chapter applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that the judgment both: (1) Grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. (2) Under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive, and enforceable. (b) This chapter does not apply to a foreign-country judgment, even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to the extent that the judgment is any of the following: (1) A judgment for taxes. (2) A fine or other penalty. (3) (A) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations. (B) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations may be recognized by a court of this state pursuant to Section 1723. (c) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that the foreign-country judgment is entitled to recognition under this chapter.

1716. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (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 shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply: (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. (3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. (c) A court of this state is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply: (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 or claim for relief 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. (8) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (9) The judgment includes recovery for a claim of defamation unless the court determines that the defamation law applied by the foreign court provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as provided by both the United States and California Constitutions. (d) If the party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has met its burden of establishing recognition of the foreign-country judgment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1715, a party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subdivision (b) or (c) exists.

1717. (a) A foreign-country judgment shall not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if any of the following apply: (1) The defendant was served with process personally in the

foreign country. (2) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant. (3) The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved. (4) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country. (5) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceeding in the foreign court involved a cause of action or claim for relief arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country. (6) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceeding involved a cause of action or claim for relief arising out of that operation. (b) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subdivision (a) is not exclusive. The courts of this state may recognize bases of personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subdivision (a) as sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment. (c) If a judgment was rendered in an action for defamation in a foreign country against a person who is a resident of California or a person or entity amenable to jurisdiction in California, and declaratory relief with respect to liability for the judgment or a determination that the judgment is not recognizable in California under Section 1716 is sought, a court has jurisdiction to determine the declaratory relief action as well as personal jurisdiction over the person or entity who obtained the foreign-country judgment if both of the following apply: (1) The publication at issue was published in California. (2) The person who is a resident, or the person or entity who is amenable to jurisdiction in California, either (A) has assets in California that might be subject to an enforcement proceeding to satisfy the foreign-country defamation judgment, or (B) may have to take actions in California to comply with the foreign-country defamation judgment. This subdivision shall apply to persons who obtained judgments in

defamation proceedings in a foreign country both prior to and after January 1, 2010.

1718. (a) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment. (b) If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought in a pending action, the issue of recognition may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.

1719. If the court in a proceeding under Section 1718 finds that the foreign-country judgment is entitled to recognition under this chapter then, to the extent that the foreign-country judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, the foreign-country judgment is both of the following: (a) Conclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit in this state would be conclusive. (b) Enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this state. 1720. If a party establishes that an appeal from a foreign-country judgment is pending or will be taken in the foreign country, the court may stay any proceedings with regard to the foreign-country judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the appellant has had sufficient time to prosecute the appeal and has failed to do so.

1721. An action to recognize a foreign-country judgment shall be commenced within the earlier of the time during which the foreign-country judgment is effective in the foreign country or 10 years from the date that the foreign-country judgment became effective in the foreign country.

1722. In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.

1723. This chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this chapter.

1724. (a) This chapter applies to all actions commenced on or after the effective date of this chapter in which the issue of recognition of a foreign-country judgment is raised. (b) The former Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1713) of Title 11 of Part 3) applies to all actions commenced before the effective date of this chapter in which the issue of recognition of a foreign-country judgment is raised.

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act

More like this

Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA) Model Entity Transactions Act Uniform Parentage Act Statement Uniform Debt Management Services Act Statement Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act

By CSG Committee on Suggested State Legislation | Friday, January 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act SSL Draft Summary: International trade creates litigation between countries and judgments that must be enforced from country to country. There is a strong need for uniformity between states with respect to the law governing foreign country money-judgments. If foreign country judgments are not enforced appropriately and uniformly, it may make enforcement of the judgments of American courts more difficult in foreign country courts. The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country judgment. The recognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action is filed for the purpose. If the judgment meets the statutory standards, the state court will recognize it. It then may be enforced as if it is a judgment of another state of the United States. Enforcement may then proceed, which means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount. First, it must be shown that the judgment is conclusive, final and enforceable in the country of origin. Certain money judgments are excluded, such as judgments on taxes, fines or criminal-like penalties and judgments relating to domestic relations. Domestic relations judgments are enforced under other statutes, already existing in every state. A foreign-country judgment must not be recognized if it comes from a court system that is not impartial or that dishonors due process, or there is no personal jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject matter of the litigation. There are a number of grounds that may make a U.S. court deny recognition, i.e., the defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding or the claim is repugnant to American public policy. A final, conclusive judgment enforceable in the country of origin, if it is not excluded for one of the enumerated reasons, must be recognized and enforced. In 1962, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) promulgated its Uniform Act Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, which codified the most prevalent common law rules with regard to the recognition and enforcement of money judgments rendered in other countries. Under the 1962 Act, a state was required to recognize a foreign-country money judgment if the judgment satisfied the standards for recognition set out in the Act. Since its promulgation more than 40 years ago, the 1962 Act has been adopted in a majority of the states and has been in large part successful in carrying out its purpose of establishing clear and uniform standards under which state courts will enforce the foreign-country money judgments that come within its scope. New Mexico HB 690 enacts a revised version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962. The revised version, which was first promulgated by the ULC in 2005, generally provides simple court procedures for the enforcement of foreign-country money judgments. It corrects and clarifies gaps in the 1962 Act revealed in the case law over the last 40 years. The revision addresses burdens of proof for the first time, providing that a petitioner for recognition has the burden of proving a judgment is entitled to recognition under the standards of the Act, and that any respondent resisting recognition and enforcement has the burden of proof respecting denial of recognition. It revises the grounds for denying recognition of foreign-country money judgments and establishes a statute of limitations for recognition actions. Finally, the revised Act generally updates and clarifies both the definitions and the scope section of the 1962 edition. Specifically, the 2005 revised Act makes it clear that a judgment entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution is not enforceable under this Act. This clarifies the relationship between the ULCs Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act and the Enforcement of Foreign

Judgments Act. Recognition by a court is a different procedure than enforcement of a sister state judgment from within the United States. The 2005 revision expressly provides that a party seeking recognition of a foreign judgment has the burden to prove that the judgment is subject to the Uniform Act. Burden of proof was not addressed in the 1962 Act. Conversely, the 2005 Act imposes the burden of proof for establishing a specific ground for non-recognition upon the party raising it. Again, burden of proof is not addressed in the 1962 Act. The 2005 Act addresses the specific procedure for seeking enforcement. If recognition is sought as an original matter, the party seeking recognition must file an action in the court to obtain recognition. If recognition is sought in a pending action, it may be filed as a counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense in the pending action. The 1962 Act does not address the procedure to obtain recognition at all, leaving that to other state law. The 2005 Act provides a statute of limitations on enforcement of a foreign-country judgment. If the judgment cannot be enforced any longer in the country of origin, it may not be enforced in a court of an enacting state. If there is no limitation on enforcement in the country of origin, the judgment becomes unenforceable in an enacting state after 15 years from the time the judgment is effective in the country of origin. Thirteen states had enacted the revised Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act as of June 2010: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington. Interested readers can download the approved text of the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act at www.nccusl.org .

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act - Second Circuit dismisses injunction proceedings based on New York's Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act

Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, No. 11-1150, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1463 (2nd Cir. Jan. 26, 2012) [click for opinion ] Citizens of Ecuador residing in the Lago Agrio region ("Lago Agrio Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit in Ecuador which claimed that the predecessor of Chevron damaged the environment in which they lived from 1964 through 1992. On February 14, 2011, after seven years of litigation, the Ecuadorian trial court issued a decision against Chevron for $8.6 billion in damages, with $8.6 billion in punitive damages to be awarded unless Chevron apologized within 14 days of the opinion's issuance. Chevron did not apologize, and the pending judgment was thus for $17.2 billion ("Ecuadorian Judgment"). On February 1, 2011, Chevron filed an action in the Southern District of New York in part under New York's Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act (the "Recognition Act"), New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") 5301-5309 , which allows judgment-creditors to enforce foreign judgments in New York courts, subject to several exceptions. One of the mandatory exceptions requires that a court not enforce a judgment if "the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide Baker & McKenzie Ecuador, USA March 27 2012

impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law." Chevron claimed that the decision by the Ecuadorian court was tainted by fraud, and also alleged that Plaintiffs' American attorney, Steven Donziger, wrested control of the Ecuadorian judicial process through political pressure that resulted in a judgment based on political manipulation rather than the rule of law. The district court granted the injunction, confirming Chevron's theory of the judgment's invalidity and held that Chevron was, at a subsequent trial, either likely to prevail on the merits or at least show that the Ecuadorian court system is incapable of producing a judgment that New York courts would enforce under the Recognition Act, reasoning that the Ecuadorian judicial system "has been plagued by corruption and political interference for decades, that the situation has worsened since President Correa's election," and that there was "ample evidence of fraud in the Ecuadorian proceedings." The injunction enjoined the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs from commencing any action for the recognition or enforcement of the Ecuadorian Judgment by any court outside the Republic of Ecuador. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court with the instruction to dismiss Chevron's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Recognition Act, holding that the Recognition Act did not permit a potential judgment-debtor, like Chevron, to preemptively seek a global anti-enforcement injunction. The court stated that the Recognition Act does not create an affirmative cause of action to declare foreign judgments void and unenforceable rather, the sections on which Chevron relies are exceptions from the circumstances in which a holder of a foreign judgment can obtain enforcement of that judgment in New York. According to CPLR 5303 , challenges to the validity of foreign judgments under the Recognition Act can occur only after a judgment-creditor seeks enforcement in an "action on the judgment, a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, or in a pending action by counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense," and not before. The court also considered international comity concerns as additional reasons to conclude that the Recognition Act could not support the broad injunctive remedy granted by the district court. By enacting the Recognition Act, which provides a ready means for foreign judgment-creditors to enforce their rights in New York courts while reserving New York's right to decline to participate in the enforcement of judgments procured by fraud, New York "undertook to act as a responsible participant in the international system of justice not to set up its courts as a transnational arbiter to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."

Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act Summary

In 1962, the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Foreign MoneyJudgments Recognition Act. It is a companion to the 1948 (amended in 1962) Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. In spite of the similarities in titles, these acts deal with quite different problems of judgment enforcement. The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act provides for enforcement of a state court judgment in another state to implement the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Foreign MoneyJudgments Recognition Act provided for enforcement of foreign country judgments in a

state court in the United States. The 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition act has been enacted in 32 states. The increase in international trade in the United States has also meant more litigation in the interstate context. This means more judgments to be enforced from country to country. There is a strong need for uniformity between states with respect to the law governing foreign country money-judgments. If foreign country judgments are not enforced appropriately and uniformly, it may make enforcement of the judgments of American courts more difficult in foreign country courts. To meet the increased needs for enforcement of foreign country money-judgments, the Uniform Law Commissioners have promulgated a revision of the 1962 Uniform Act with the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA). The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country judgment. The recognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action is filed for the purpose. If the judgment meets the statutory standards, the state court will recognize it. It then may be enforced as if it is a judgment of another state of the United States. Enforcement may then proceed, which means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of the judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount. First, it must be shown that the judgment is conclusive, final and enforceable in the country of origin. Certain money judgments are excluded, such as judgments on taxes, fines or criminal-like penalties and judgments relating to domestic relations. Domestic relations judgments are enforced under other statutes, already existing in every state. A foreigncountry judgment must not be recognized if it comes from a court system that is not impartial or that dishonors due process, or there is no personal jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject matter of the litigation. There are a number of grounds that may make a U.S. court deny recognition, i.e., the defendant did not receive notice of the proceeding or the claim is repugnant to American public policy. A final, conclusive judgment enforceable in the country of origin, if it is not excluded for one of the enumerated reasons, must be recognized and enforced. The 1962 Act and the 2005 Act generally operate the same. The primary differences between the 1962 and the 2005 Uniform Acts are as follows: 1. The 2005 Act makes it clear that a judgment entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution is not enforceable under this Act. This clarifies the relationship between the Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Recognition by a court is a different procedure than enforcement of a sister state judgment from within the United States. 2. The 2005 Act expressly provides that a party seeking recognition of a foreign judgment has the burden to prove that the judgment is subject to the Uniform Act. Burden of proof was not addressed in the 1962 Act.

3. Conversely, the 2005 Act imposes the burden of proof for establishing a specific ground for non-recognition upon the party raising it. Again, burden of proof is not addressed in the 1962 Act. 4. The 2005 Act addresses the specific procedure for seeking enforcement. If recognition is sought as an original matter, the party seeking recognition must file an action in the court to obtain recognition. If recognition is sought in a pending action, it may be filed as a counter-claim, cross-claim or affirmative defense in the pending action. The 1962 Act does not address the procedure to obtain recognition at all, leaving that to other state law. 5. The 2005 Act provides a statute of limitations on enforcement of a foreign-country judgment. If the judgment cannot be enforced any longer in the country of origin, it may not be enforced in a court of an enacting state. If there is no limitation on enforcement in the country of origin, the judgment becomes unenforceable in an enacting state after 15 years from the time the judgment is effective in the country of origin. These are the principal advances of the 2005 Act over the 1962 Act. The 2005 Act is not a radically new act. It builds upon the tried principles of the 1962 Act in a necessary upgrade for the 21st Century. It should be enacted in every state as soon as possible. If substantial uniformity is not gained within the foreseeable future, Congress may preempt the recognition and enforcement law.

District of Columbia Enacts Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act

Dec 31st, 2011 | By Douglas C. Melcher | Category: Legislative Notes

On December 21, 2011, the District of Columbia enacted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2011 (the Act). The legislation, which was introduced as Bill 19-216, was unanimously approved by the D.C. Council on its final reading in early December and was then signed by the Mayor. The Act is designated Act 19-246 and will become effective after the expiration of a 30-day period of Congressional review and publication in the D.C. Register. Upon becoming effective, the Act will be codified at D.C. Code 15-361 to 15-371. [Update: The Act became effective on February 24, 2012, and is now D.C. Law 19-86.] The preamble to the Act states that its purpose is to provide uniform procedures for the enforcement of foreign-country money judgments, to provide that a petitioner for recognition has the [initial] burden of proving a judgment is entitled to recognition and that any respondent resisting recognition and enforcement has the burden of proof respecting denial of recognition [after the petitioner fulfills its initial burden], to revise the grounds for denying recognition of foreign-country money judgments, and to establish a statute of limitations for recognition actions. A detailed discussion about the background and need for the legislation, and a section-bysection analysis of the legislation, is contained in a Committee Report of the D.C.

Councils Judiciary Committee, dated October 11, 2011. The Committee Report also discusses a public hearing on the legislation which was held by the Judiciary Committee on May 31, 2011. To retrieve an electronic copy of the Act as published in the D.C. Register, click here. To retrieve an electronic copy of the Committee Report from the D.C. Councils website, click here.