Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Texas

"In the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 35 deals with Enforcement of Judgments of Other States, while Chapter 36 governs Enforcements of Judgments of Other Countries.

Karsetter v. Voss, 184 S.W.3d 396, 401-402 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Studebaker Worthington Leasing Corp. v. Texas Shutters Corp. and Jesus Figueroa, 243 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no writ). Examples that illustrate the mechanics of the Act and the limited ability to challenge a foreign judgment are set out in three cases which are recommend to you for further information on this topic. See Mayhew v. Caprito, 794 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1990); Bahr v. Kohr, 928 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied); and Walnut Equipment Leasing Co., Inc. v. Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. 1996)."

"A defense interposed in a Texas Court against the enforcement of a foreign judgment is a collateral attack. See Cash Register Sales and Service, 62 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no writ), citing, Corporate Leasing Int’l., Inc. v. Bridgewell, 896 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, orig. proceeding). In a collateral attack on a sister state’s judgment, no defense may be set up that goes to the merits of the original controversy. See Strick Lease, Inc. v. Cutler, 759 S.W.2d 776, 777 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1988, no writ). Texas law is clear. A defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a sister state to render a foreign judgment on only two grounds:

(1) Defendant may try to demonstrate service of process was inadequate under the service of process rules of the sister state, or

(2) Defendant may assert that the sister state’s exercise of due process offends due process because it does not have minimum contacts with the sister state.

Karsetter v. Voss, 184 S.W.3d 396, 401-402 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Studebaker Worthington Leasing Corp. v. Texas Shutters Corp. and Jesus Figueroa, 243 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no writ). Examples that illustrate the mechanics of the Act and the limited ability to challenge a foreign judgment are set out in three cases which are recommend to you for further information on this topic. See Mayhew v. Caprito, 794 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. 1990); Bahr v. Kohr, 928 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied); and Walnut Equipment Leasing Co., Inc. v. Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. 1996)."