Recognition of Judgments

Question 1

Res Judicata and Forum Policy

1. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

Answer 1

1. U.S. Const. art. IV § 1 – Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the judicial proceedings of every other State.
2. 28 USC 1738 – the judicial proceedings of any court of any state … shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the U.S. … as they have by law or usage in the courts of such state from which they are taken.

Question 2

Res Judicata

1. Claim Preclusion
2. Issue Preclusion

Answer 2

1. Claim Preclusion – precludes further suits upon same cause of action after final judgment.
   
   1. Only applies to same parties to original proceeding on same cause of action
2. Issue Preclusion – precludes further litigation of issues in previous litigation that were fully and fairly litigated by the parties and decided on the merits by the court.
   
   1. On the Merits - Default judgment not decided on the merits so no preclusive effect.
   2. Only applies if party against whom finding is used was a party or in privity with party to first litigation.

Question 3

Sister-State Judgments

1. General Rule
2. Purpose
3. Exceptions?

Answer 3

1. General Rule - courts in sister states have to give judgments in sister states the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the U.S., which it had in the state where it was pronounced.
2. Purpose - The reason for this is res judicata. We want finality rather than sister-states constantly challenging each other’s judgments.
3. Exceptions
   
   1. No Public Policy Exception - There is no public policy exception for sister-state judgments as with sister-state laws generally.
   2. Extrinsice Fraud - the defendant has been tricked in some way that prevented the defendant from appearing and defending the claim.
      
      1. Majority Rule - Most courts allow the setting aside of judgments based on extrinsic fraud.

Question 4

Res Judicata and Lack of Jurisdiction

1. General Rule
2. Exception
   
   1. ​Applicability
      
      1. Exception
   2. Effect

Answer 4

Res Judicata and Lack of Jurisdiction

1. General Rule - a judgment in one state is conclusive on the mertis in another state unless the first didn’t have the jurisdiction to render such judgment.
2. Exception - a judgment is entitled to FFC, even as to questions of jurisdiction, when the issue has been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided by the court rendering the original judgment.
   
   1. Applicable to both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.
      
      1. Real Property Exception - A state court cannot adjudicate the disposition of real property situated in another state because they have no subject matter jurisdiction over it.
   2. Effect - if defendant makes an appearance and the issue of personal and subject matter jurisdiction are litigated = can’t litigate them again in collateral attack.
      
      1. Irony - could attack them in collateral litigation if doesn’t make an appearance.

Question 5

Inconsistent Judgements and Res Judicata

1. Restatement 2d Rule
   
   1. Purpose
   2. Reasoning?

Answer 5

1. Restatement 2d § 114 – When two valid, conflicting judgments are rendered by different state courts concerning the same case and parties, the latter judgment in time controls.
   
   1. Ensures finality
   2. Assumption is F-2 had reason for not deferring to F-1
      
      1. If no good reason, can attack it by appeal in F-2’s appellate court rather than collaterally

Question 6

Non Final Decrees

1. General Rule -
2. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Answer 6

Non Final Decrees

1. General Rule - full faith and credit does not required the enforcement of a sister-state’s non-final decree or a decree subject to modification (e.g., child support obligations).
   
   1. neither does it prohibit F-2 from enforcing the non-final decree
      
      1. If F-2 does enforce, then the decree is subject to modification by the California court.
2. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act - UIFSA - All states have adoptied
   
   1. Modification - only one court at a time has jurisdiction to modify family support orders
   2. Enforcement - decree is enforceable in every other state through registration.

Question 7

1. Parallel Litigation Example - P sues D in F-1. While F-1 case is pending, D sues P in F-2, seeking declaratory judgment that D is not liable.
   
   1. What should F-2 do?
   2. What is F-2 constitutionally required to do?
2. Dueling Injunctions Example – same facts as above, but F-2 enjoins P from proceeding in F-1 and F-1 enjoins D from proceeding in F-2.
   
   1. Who is required to do what?
3. Dueling Judgments Example – same facts as above and F-2 enters a final judgment for Defendant first.
   
   1. Who is required to do what?

Answer 7

1. Parallel Litigation Example - P sues D in F-1. While F-1 case is pending, D sues P in F-2, seeking declaratory judgment that D is not liable.
   
   1. What should F-2 do? – F-2 should back off pending the litigation in F-1.
   2. What is F-2 constitutionally required to do? – but F2 is not constitutionally required to back off.
2. Dueling Injunctions Example – same facts as above, but F-2 enjoins P from proceeding in F-1 and F-1 enjoins D from proceeding in F-2.
   
   1. Restatement 2d - Neither state is constitutionally required to respect the other state’s injunction.
3. Dueling Final Judgments Example – same facts as above and F-2 enters a final judgment for Defendant first.
   
   1. F-2 final judgment is conclusive and entitled to FFC by F-1.
   2. So basically creates a race to a judgment.

Question 8

Foreign Country Judgments and Res Judicata -

1. Does FFC apply to foreign country judgments?
2. What about principles of res judicata?
3. Restatement 2d on Foreign Country Judgments
4. Reciprocity
   
   1. Minority Rule
   2. Majority Rule
5. Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act
   
   1. General Rule
   2. Exceptions
      
      1. Mandatory Nonrecognition
      2. Discretionary Nonrecognition
   3. Exceptions not in Act

Answer 8

1. No, states are not required by FFCC to enforce foreign country judgments.
2. Yes, principles of comity and res judicata apply to foreign country judgments
   
   1. Restatement 2d - a valid foreign country judgment based on a fair trial will be recognized in the U.S.
      
      1. creates implicit inquiry into whether trial was fair.
3. Restatement 2d §98 - a foreign country’s judgmetn will not be relitigaged and will be enforced if:
   
   1. full and fair trial
   2. due citation or voluntary appearance of D
   3. impartial administration of justice
   4. no evidence of prejudice by court or laws
   5. no evidence of fraud or other special reason precluding comity
4. Reciprocity
   
   1. Minority/Texas Rule - U.S. courts don’t have to enforce foreign country judgments if a court in that country woudn’t enforce a similar U.S. judgment.
      
      1. in Texas, lack of reciprocity creates a presumption of nonenforcement.
   2. Majority Rule - both the Restatement and majority of states no longer follow reciprocity requirement.
5. UFMJRA - enacted in most states.
   
   1. General Rule – a foreign country money judgment is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit.
      
      1. Enacted in most states (including Texas)
   2. Exceptions
      
      1. Mandatory Nonrecognition
         
         1. Foreign court lacked Jurisdiction (personal or subject matter); or
         2. F-1 courts are not impartial or F-1 procedures don’t comport with due process.
      2. Discretionary Nonrecognition
         
         1. Notice not received in time to defend
         2. Fraud
         3. Underlying claim is “repugnant to public policy”
            
            1. remember only allowed for foreign country judgments.
         4. Contrary to Forum Selection Agreement
         5. Seriously inconvenient forum and jurisdiction based solely on personal service within jurisdiction.
         6. Conflict with another judgment
      3. Exceptions Not in Act -
         
         1. Lack of Reciprocity - minority of states, including Texas, stilll consider lack of reciprocity as discretionary nonrecognition.