Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Connecticut has adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Under the Act, a judgment creditor shall file, with a certified copy of a foreign judgment, in the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, that it is unsatisfied in whole or in part, the amount remaining unpaid and that the enforcement of such judgment has not been stayed and setting forth the name and last-known address of the judgment debtor. The foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of the state. (C.G.S.A. § 52-605)

Upon ""registration"" of a foreign judgment with the Connecticut courts under the UEFJA, such judgment is treated the same as a judgment obtained in Connecticut and may be executed upon accordingly. Seaboard Surety Co. v. Waterbury, 38 Conn. Sup. 468, 470-72 (1982). ""The effect of §52-605, therefore, is to establish a foreign judgment that is not obtained by default in appearance or by confession as a domestic judgment that is conclusive of the defendantÕs indebtedness."" Id. Foreign judgments not obtained by default or confession, and properly registered under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-605, cannot be collaterally attacked.

Foreign judgments obtained by default in appearance or confession may be enforced in Connecticut by the filing of an independent action under Connecticut common law. See Packer Plastics, Inc. v. Laudon, 214 Conn. 52, 56 (1990) (action brought to enforce and domesticate Kansas judgment, where defendant was defaulted for failure to appear before the Kansas court); Tri-State Tank Corp. v. Higganum Heating, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 798, 802 (1997). Defenses to such common-law enforcement actions are strictly limited to jurisdictional grounds (unless such issues were waived by the defendant or were fully litigated by the rendering court). Nastro v. DÕOnofrio, 76 Conn. App. 814, 824 (2003) (""To comply with federal constitutional law, the only defenses that a Connecticut court should consider when out-of-state judgment debtors claim that an out-of-state judgment is unenforceable are those that implicate the personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the out-of-state court.""); Packer Plastics, 214 Conn. at 56. The party attacking the judgment bears the burden of proof regardless of whether the judgment at issue was rendered after a full trial on the merits or after an ex parte proceeding. Packer Plastics, 214 Conn. at 57.