Domestication of Foreign Judgments

You cannot enforce a foreign judgment directly. You first have to obtain recognition from a U.S. court, typically under the state's version of the Uniform Out-of-Country Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition Act. Once the U.S. court recognizes the judgment, it is treated like a domestic judgment and can be enforced through the usual tools, including liens, bank garnishment, and execution against assets. In Florida, this is a frequent proceeding because of the state's connections to Latin America.

U.S. courts can refuse to recognize a foreign judgment on several grounds, including that the foreign court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction, that the judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or due process, that the defendant did not receive adequate notice, that the judgment was obtained by fraud, or that recognition would violate public policy. The strength of these defenses depends on what actually happened in the foreign proceeding, which is why analyzing the foreign record matters.

Yes, in practice. The United States has no treaty for the general recognition of foreign money judgments, so recognition is governed by state law and turns on the fairness and regularity of the foreign proceeding rather than on a bilateral agreement. Judgments from countries with well-functioning, due-process-respecting courts are generally recognized; judgments from systems with serious procedural problems invite contested recognition fights. Understanding the foreign court system is part of the analysis either way.

Yes, and usually they should be. Recognition is a means to collection. Where assets may be moved or hidden, we pair the recognition action with asset tracing and post-judgment discovery, and where funds have passed through U.S. accounts we can use tools such as Section 1782 discovery and, where warranted, freezing relief. Speed often matters, because assets can move faster than a recognition proceeding if it is run in isolation.