626B.3 - INCONCLUSIVE JUDGMENTS.
626B.3 INCONCLUSIVE JUDGMENTS. 1. A foreign judgment is not conclusive in any of the following cases: a. The foreign judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. b. Except as provided in section 626B.4, the court of the foreign state did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. c. The court of the foreign state did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter involved in the action. 2. A foreign judgment need not be recognized in any of the following cases: a. The defendant in the proceedings in the court of the foreign state did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend against the action. b. The foreign judgment was obtained by fraud. c. The cause of action on which the foreign judgment was based is contrary to the public policy of this state. d. The foreign judgment conflicts with a previous, final, and conclusive foreign judgment or other judgment. e. The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to a settlement agreement entered into between the parties prior to the foreign judgment's being rendered by the court in the foreign state. f. The court where the plaintiff is seeking to enforce the foreign judgment determines that jurisdiction in the court of the foreign state was based upon personal service only, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to the original action.
Section History: Recent Form 89 Acts, ch 173, §3 Referred to in § 624.24, 626B.2, 626B.6