§ 1C-1853. Standards for recognition and nonrecognition of foreign-country judgment.
§ 1C‑1853. Standardsfor recognition and nonrecognition of foreign‑country judgment.
(a) Except as otherwiseprovided in this section, a court of this State shall recognize a foreign‑countryjudgment to which this Article applies.
(b) A court of thisState shall not recognize a foreign‑country judgment if:
(1) The judgment wasrendered under a judicial system that, taken as a whole, does not provideimpartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of dueprocess of law;
(2) The foreign courtdid not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or
(3) The foreign courtdid not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(c) If a court of thisState finds that any of the following exist with respect to a foreign‑countryjudgment for which recognition is sought, recognition of the judgment shall bedenied unless the court determines, as a matter of law, that recognition wouldnevertheless be reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) The defendant in theproceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding insufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.
(2) The judgment wasobtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity topresent its case.
(3) The judgment, or thecause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based, isrepugnant to the public policy of this State or of the United States.
(4) Reserved for futurecodification.
(5) The proceeding inthe foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under whichthe dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings inthat foreign court.
(6) In the case ofjurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriouslyinconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
(7) The judgment wasrendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity ofthe rendering court with respect to the judgment.
(8) The specificproceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was fundamentallyunfair.
(d) If a foreign‑countryjudgment for which recognition is sought is otherwise entitled to recognitionunder this Article but conflicts with a prior final and conclusive judgment, acourt of this State shall recognize the judgment for which recognition issought unless the court determines that nonrecognition would nevertheless bereasonable under the circumstances.
(e) If a foreign‑countryjudgment for which recognition is sought is otherwise entitled to recognitionunder this Article but conflicts with a subsequent final and conclusivejudgment, a court of this State shall deny recognition of the judgment forwhich recognition is sought unless the court determines that recognition wouldnevertheless be reasonable under the circumstances.
(f) A party resistingrecognition of a foreign‑country judgment has the burden of establishingthat a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection (b) of this sectionexists.
(g) A party resistingrecognition of a foreign‑country judgment has the burden of establishingthat a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection (c) of this sectionexists. The party seeking recognition of the judgment has the burden ofestablishing that, as a matter of law, recognition would nevertheless bereasonable under the circumstances.
(h) A party resistingrecognition of a foreign‑country judgment under subsection (d) or (e) ofthis section has the burden of establishing that another final and conclusivejudgment exists and that the other judgment conflicts with the judgment forwhich recognition is sought. Under subsection (d) of this section, the partyresisting recognition also has the burden of establishing that nonrecognitionof the judgment for which recognition is sought would be reasonable under thecircumstances. Under subsection (e) of this section, the party seekingrecognition of the foreign‑country judgment has the burden ofestablishing that recognition would be reasonable under the circumstances.
(i) When a court ofthis State rules on recognition of a foreign‑country judgment, the courtshall state the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law. (2009‑325, s. 2.)