Recognition of Judgment Flashcards
Core Things to Look for Re Conflicts Q’s
- look for conflicts issues when the facts include connections to multiple states
- usually combined w/ other subjects, especially family law, federal procedure, or torts
Basic Conditions Raising Recognition of Judgment Q’s
- judgment has been entered by a court in one jurisdiction AND
- party is seeking to have that judgment recognized by a court in a different jurisdiction
Rendering Jurisdiction
- the place where the judgment was originally entered
Recognizing Jurisdiction
- the place where recognition is being sought
Core Q Re Recognition
- “will the recognizing court recognize the judgment issued by the rendering court?”
Reasons for a Party to Seek Recognition
- plaintiffs will most often seek recognition in order to access enforcement mechanisms in the rendering state
- defendants will most often seek to prevent pls from relitigating claim or issue
Questions to Ask Yourself Re Recognition
I - is the rendering jur a sister state or a foreign country?
IIA - if a sister state:
-> are the reqs of full faith + credit satisfied?
-> are there any valid defenses?
-> recognition required when answer to #1 is yes and answer to #2 is no
IIB - if foreign country:
-> is foreign judgment entitled to comity?
Sister State Judgments - Overview
- if rendering court = court in a sister state, then source of obligation to recognize the judgment is constitutional (Full Faith + Credit Clause applies)
- by statute, full faith + credit applies to recognition of judgments between fed courts + state courts
Requirements for Full Faith + Credit
- rendering state must’ve had jurisdiction (both personal and subject matter)
- judgment must’ve been on the merits
- judgment must be final
Exceptions to Jurisdictional Req
- when issue of jur has been fully + fairly litigated, the jurisdictional determination itself is entitled to full + faith credit
- pretty sure though waiver of pj would also qualify as “fully + fairly litigated”
Examples of Judgments NOT on the Merits
- statute of limitations
- lack of jurisdiction (either personal or subject matter)
- misjoinder
- improper venue
- failure to state a claim (sometimes)
Default Judgment
- treats all factual contentions as admitted -> means it qualifies as on the merits for full faith+ credit and recognition of judgment purposes
- couldn’t be used for issue preclusion b/c no actual issues determined
Consent Judgment
- entered after settlement
- considered on the merits for purposes of recognition
Finality - Wrinkles
- a judgment on appeal in the rendering jur is NOT final
Which laws is used to determine the three reqs of full faith + credit
- whether 3 reqs met evaluated using the law of the rendering state
- BUT law of the enforcing state governs the method of enforcement
Defenses to Full Faith + Credit
- penal judgments
- extrinsic fraud
- note that public policy and mistake are NOT defenses to full faith + credit
-> ex: even if another state ct mistakenly applies your state’s law, your state would still need to recognize that judgment
-> state can’t refuse to enforce a judgment just b/c its own public policy runs against it
Penal Judgment
- one that punishes an offense against the public
-> in practice, means the pl in the suit that led to the judgment was the state - NOT entitled to full faith + credit
Extrinsic Fraud
- fraud that could not be corrected during the regular course of proceedings leading to the judgment
- NOT entitled to full faith + credit
Comity
- if rendering ct in a foreign country, source of ob to recognize judgment = comity or treaty
- RULE: under comity principles, recognizing court will exercise discretion to decide whether foreign judgment should be recognized
-> many of same principles as full faith + credit considered to guide ct’s discretion (on merits? final?)
-> BUT two additional q’s: jur (greater leeway) and fairness
Comity - Jurisdiction
- different than full faith + credit b/c American court has greater leeway -> even if jur has already been litigated, American ct can decline to recognize the judgment on grounds of lack of jur (based on own determination)
Comity - Fairness
- Am ct will assess whether procedures in foreign ct were fair
-> ex: inability to call witnesses, to challenge the admissibility of ev, etc. -> Am court can conclude foreign judgment tainted by sham procedures + therefore not entitled to recognition
