Summary. A judgment from a foreign court has no automatic effect in the United States, and there is no treaty that makes it enforceable. What exists instead is state law: most states have adopted a uniform recognition act under which a foreign money judgment is recognized unless one of a short list of mandatory or discretionary grounds applies, and once recognized it is enforced exactly like a domestic judgment. The analysis therefore proceeds in two distinct stages that practitioners routinely conflate — recognition, which is about whether the foreign court's judgment counts, and enforcement, which is about collecting. This guide covers the recognition standards and their defenses, the procedural routes to a domestic judgment, the different and easier rules for sister-state judgments and arbitral awards, and the collection work that follows.

A client wins a judgment in London, or Frankfurt, or São Paulo. The defendant has assets in Texas. The client asks how long it will take to collect.

The honest answer begins with a correction: the foreign judgment, standing alone, is worth nothing in Texas. It is not a judgment there. It is evidence of an obligation, which a Texas court may — or may not — convert into a Texas judgment, after which the ordinary collection machinery becomes available.

There is no treaty obliging American courts to enforce foreign judgments. The United States is not party to a general judgments convention in force, and the analysis is therefore governed by state law, applied by whichever state's courts are asked.

The two stages

Keep them separate, because the defenses differ.

Recognition asks whether the foreign judgment is entitled to effect at all. It is governed by the recognition act, by comity principles, and by a defined list of defenses.

Enforcement asks how to collect. Once recognized, the judgment is enforced exactly like any domestic judgment, with the same writs, liens, garnishments, and examinations.

A judgment can be recognized and uncollectible, and frequently is.

The governing law

The uniform acts

Most states have adopted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (2005), and several retain the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act. The differences are meaningful and include the allocation of the burden of proof, the addition of a statute of limitations, and clarification of the procedure.

The 2005 Act applies to a foreign-country judgment that grants or denies recovery of a sum of money and is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered. Section 3 excludes judgments for taxes, fines and other penalties, and — with an exception for the 2005 Act's treatment — domestic relations judgments, which are handled under separate frameworks.

Section 4(a) establishes the basic rule: a court shall recognize a covered foreign-country judgment. Under the 2005 Act, § 4(d) places the burden of establishing a ground for nonrecognition on the party resisting recognition.

Where no act applies

A handful of states operate under common-law comity, derived from Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), which set out the classic test — a full and fair trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, under a system of impartial justice, with regular proceedings and due citation. Hilton also announced a reciprocity requirement that most American courts have since abandoned.

Note that Erie applies: a federal court sitting in diversity applies the recognition law of the forum state.

The grounds for nonrecognition

This is the substance of the fight.

Mandatory grounds — § 4(b)

A court shall not recognize where:

1. The judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process of law. This is a challenge to the system, not to the particular case, and it is a very high bar. Courts have been reluctant to condemn entire legal systems, and a party asserting it needs country-specific evidence — State Department reports, expert declarations from comparative law scholars, and evidence of systemic corruption.

2. The foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

3. The foreign court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 5 supplies a safe-harbor list of bases on which personal jurisdiction may not be questioned: personal service in the foreign country, voluntary appearance other than to contest jurisdiction, agreement to submit, domicile or principal place of business there, a business office there where the claim arose from that office's business, and operation of a vehicle or aircraft there. The list is not exclusive, and § 5(b) permits recognition on other bases the court finds sufficient.

Discretionary grounds — § 4(c)

A court need not recognize where:

1. The defendant did not receive notice in sufficient time to defend.

2. The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case. This is extrinsic fraud — fraud that prevented a fair contest — not intrinsic fraud such as perjury at trial, which is generally not a ground.

3. The judgment or the claim is repugnant to the public policy of the state or of the United States. Construed narrowly: repugnant means fundamentally offensive, not merely different. Foreign law that lacks an American defense, imposes different damages, or reaches a result an American court would not is not thereby repugnant.

4. The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.

5. The proceeding was contrary to an agreement between the parties to resolve the dispute otherwise — most commonly a forum selection or arbitration clause the plaintiff ignored.

6. In a case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum.

7. The judgment was rendered in circumstances raising substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to that judgment. Added by the 2005 Act, this permits a case-specific corruption challenge without condemning the entire system, and it has become an important provision.

8. The specific proceeding was not compatible with due process. Also added in 2005, and likewise case-specific.

The SPEECH Act

A distinct and important federal overlay. The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101–4105, prohibits recognition or enforcement of a foreign defamation judgment unless the domestic court determines that the foreign law provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment and the forum state's constitution, or that the party would have been found liable under domestic law in any event.

The party opposing recognition need only show the judgment is for defamation; the burden then shifts to the party seeking enforcement. The Act also requires a jurisdictional showing consistent with the First Amendment, provides for attorney's fees to a successful opponent, and reaches judgments against providers of interactive computer services inconsistent with 47 U.S.C. § 230.

The Act was a direct response to "libel tourism" — plaintiffs suing American authors and publishers in jurisdictions with claimant-friendly defamation law.

Procedure

Where to file

Where the assets are. Recognition is sought in a state where the debtor has property or is subject to jurisdiction. With assets in several states, seek recognition in one and then domesticate the resulting domestic judgment in the others — which is far easier, as explained below.

The court needs jurisdiction over the debtor or over the property. A quasi in rem approach against specific property is available in some states.

How to raise it

Section 6 of the 2005 Act provides the mechanics:

  • If recognition is sought as an original matter, the party files an action — a complaint seeking recognition, or in several states a petition or motion procedure.
  • If recognition is sought in a pending proceeding, it is raised by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.

Some states permit a registration procedure for foreign-country judgments similar to the sister-state process. Most do not, and an action is required.

What to file

  • An authenticated copy of the foreign judgment, with an apostille under the Hague Apostille Convention where the rendering country is a party, or consular legalization where it is not.
  • A certified translation where the judgment is not in English.
  • Proof of finality and enforceability in the rendering country — typically a certificate from the foreign court or a declaration from local counsel, addressing whether appeals are exhausted or the time has run.
  • A declaration of foreign law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 or the state analogue, from a qualified expert, addressing finality, the procedure followed, and jurisdiction. Rule 44.1 permits the court to consider any relevant material, including material not admissible as evidence.
  • Proof of service in the foreign proceeding.
  • A calculation of the amount, including interest at the foreign rate to the date of the judgment.

Limitations

Section 9 of the 2005 Act sets the deadline: an action must be commenced within the earlier of the time the judgment is effective in the foreign country or fifteen years after the judgment became effective there. States that have adopted only the 1962 Act may borrow a limitations period, which can be substantially shorter.

Check this first. A time-barred recognition action is the most avoidable failure in this practice.

Currency

Most states apply the Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act where adopted, which generally uses the conversion date — the rate on the date of payment or the date the judgment is entered, depending on the provision — rather than the breach date. Where the act is not adopted, courts have used both approaches, and with a volatile currency the difference is substantial. Plead the currency issue expressly and support the rate with evidence.

Interest

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the foreign rate generally accrues to the date of the domestic judgment; thereafter the domestic rate applies. In federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 supplies the post-judgment rate.

Appeal pending abroad

A judgment on appeal may still be final and conclusive under the law of the rendering country. Section 8 permits the court to stay the recognition proceeding pending the foreign appeal, and a stay conditioned on security is common.

The easier cases

Sister-state judgments

A judgment from another U.S. state is governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Recognition is constitutionally required, not discretionary, and the defenses are narrow: the rendering court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment is not final, or it was procured by extrinsic fraud. Public policy is not a defense — Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998), and V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (2016).

The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, adopted in nearly every state, permits registration by filing an authenticated copy with the clerk, plus an affidavit with the parties' addresses. Notice issues, a short period runs during which the debtor may raise the narrow defenses, and the judgment becomes enforceable as a local judgment. This is a filing, not a lawsuit, and it takes weeks rather than months.

Federal judgments register in other districts under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.

Foreign arbitral awards

Substantially easier than judgments, and this is worth telling any client with a choice.

The New York Convention, implemented at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208, requires contracting states to recognize and enforce arbitral awards subject to the seven narrow defenses in Article V: incapacity or invalid agreement, lack of notice or inability to present a case, the award exceeding the scope of submission, irregular composition of the tribunal or procedure, the award not yet binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability, and public policy.

Note what is absent: no review of the merits, no review of the tribunal's factual findings, and a public policy exception construed extremely narrowly. Confirmation is by petition under 9 U.S.C. § 207, with a three-year limitations period, and the court "shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal."

The Panama Convention, 9 U.S.C. §§ 301–307, applies among Western Hemisphere states.

The practical implication for transactional counsel: an arbitration clause in a cross-border contract is worth substantially more at the enforcement stage than a forum selection clause designating a foreign court, because the resulting award travels and the resulting judgment does not.

The Hague Judgments Convention

The 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into force in 2023 among its parties, and the United States signed it in 2022. It is not in force for the United States, which has not ratified it, and it does not change current practice. Watch it; do not rely on it.

After recognition: collecting

A recognized judgment is a domestic judgment, and the collection toolkit opens.

Find the assets. Post-judgment discovery is broad. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) permits discovery in aid of execution using the federal rules or the practice of the forum state. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), held that post-judgment discovery may reach a debtor's worldwide assets and is not limited by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's execution provisions — a significant holding for creditors of foreign entities.

Tools: judgment debtor examinations, subpoenas to banks and third parties, and asset searches through public records, UCC filings, real property indices, and corporate registries.

Perfect the lien. Record an abstract of judgment in every county where the debtor owns real property. Docket the judgment in every district where enforcement is contemplated.

Execute. Writs of execution against personal property, levy on bank accounts, garnishment of receivables and wages subject to the CCPA limits at 15 U.S.C. § 1673, turnover orders where state law provides them, and charging orders against a debtor's interest in an LLC or partnership — frequently the only remedy available against a closely held business interest, and one whose exclusivity varies by state.

Receivership where the debtor holds an operating business or income-producing property.

Domesticate elsewhere. Once one state recognizes the foreign judgment, the resulting domestic judgment is entitled to full faith and credit and may be registered in every other state under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act — a far simpler process than seeking recognition anew in each. This is the single most useful sequencing insight in the practice: recognize once, register everywhere.

Fraudulent transfers. Where assets have moved, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act supplies avoidance remedies, and the four-year limitations period plus a one-year discovery rule in UVTA § 9 must be watched.

The special cases

Foreign sovereigns and state entities. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611, governs. Jurisdictional immunity has exceptions — commercial activity, waiver, arbitration — but execution immunity is separate and narrower: § 1610 permits attachment only of property used for commercial activity in the United States, subject to further conditions. A creditor may hold a valid judgment against a sovereign and be unable to touch anything. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act analysis should be run before the recognition action, not after.

Punitive and multiple damages. Some foreign systems will not enforce American punitive awards; conversely, an American court asked to recognize a foreign judgment containing a penal element must consider the § 3 exclusion for fines and penalties. Compensatory portions are generally severable.

Judgments against individuals who have relocated. Personal jurisdiction over the debtor in the recognition forum is required unless proceeding quasi in rem against specific property.

Bankruptcy. A debtor's bankruptcy filing stays enforcement under 11 U.S.C. § 362, and Chapter 15 provides a framework for cross-border insolvency recognition that may displace individual creditor remedies entirely.

A practical sequence

  1. Confirm finality and enforceability where rendered, with local counsel's written opinion.
  2. Check the limitations period in every candidate forum — first, before anything else.
  3. Locate the assets and identify the states where they sit.
  4. Assess the defenses honestly: was there notice, was there jurisdiction, is there a forum selection or arbitration clause the plaintiff bypassed, is any part of the judgment penal, is it a defamation judgment triggering the SPEECH Act.
  5. Select one forum — where the largest asset concentration sits, with a favorable recognition act and a debtor subject to jurisdiction.
  6. Assemble the package: authenticated judgment, apostille, certified translation, finality certificate, foreign law declaration, proof of service.
  7. File the recognition action, and consider a prejudgment attachment or lis pendens where the state permits it and assets may move.
  8. Obtain the domestic judgment.
  9. Register it in every other state under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
  10. Perfect liens, take discovery in aid of execution, and execute.
  11. Watch for transfers and pursue avoidance where warranted.

Primary authority

A worked recognition action

A German company obtains a judgment in the Landgericht Frankfurt against a Delaware corporation for €4.2 million on a supply contract. The defendant appeared and defended on the merits and lost. It has a manufacturing facility in Ohio, a bank relationship in New York, and an LLC interest in a Nevada entity.

Threshold work. German counsel provides a certificate of finality confirming the appeal period has expired and the judgment is enforceable, and a declaration explaining the proceedings. An apostille is obtained under the Hague Apostille Convention, to which Germany is party. A certified translation is prepared.

Limitations. Ohio has adopted the 2005 Act, giving fifteen years. No issue, but the check is made first.

Defenses assessed. The system ground is unavailable — no American court is going to hold that German courts lack impartial tribunals or due process. Personal jurisdiction is unassailable because the defendant appeared and defended on the merits, which falls squarely within § 5(a)(2). Notice was actual. There is no competing judgment, no forum selection clause pointing elsewhere, and nothing penal in the award. The judgment is compensatory contract damages.

The defendant's realistic arguments are narrow: perhaps that the German court applied a rule with no American analogue, which is not a public policy defense, and perhaps a challenge to the interest calculation.

Forum. Ohio, where the largest asset sits and where the defendant is plainly subject to jurisdiction.

Filing. A complaint for recognition attaching the apostilled judgment, the translation, the finality certificate, the German law declaration under the state's Rule 44.1 analogue, and proof of service in the German action. Interest is calculated at the German statutory rate to the date of the domestic judgment. Currency conversion is pleaded expressly under the Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act as adopted in Ohio.

Outcome. Recognition granted on the pleadings and a modest evidentiary record, roughly five months after filing. The court enters an Ohio judgment for the dollar equivalent plus accrued interest.

Then the sequencing insight applies. The Ohio judgment is a domestic judgment entitled to full faith and credit. It is registered under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act in New York — where the bank account is garnished — and in Nevada, where a charging order issues against the LLC interest. Each registration is a filing with a short waiting period rather than a fresh recognition action.

Total elapsed time: roughly nine months from filing to first collection, most of it in the Ohio recognition action. Had the creditor filed three separate recognition actions in three states, it would have litigated the same defenses three times, at three times the cost, with three chances to lose.

Defending against recognition

Counsel for a judgment debtor has a narrow but real set of moves, and identifying which one fits is most of the work.

Attack personal jurisdiction, if § 5 does not foreclose it. This is the most successful defense, and it usually depends on whether the debtor appeared. A debtor who defaulted abroad preserved the argument; a debtor who appeared and defended on the merits gave it away under § 5(a)(2). A special appearance to contest jurisdiction does not waive it — but whether the foreign system recognizes such a limited appearance is a question of foreign law and must be established by declaration.

Attack notice under § 4(c)(1). Was service actually effected, in a manner the foreign system required and in time to defend? Service by publication, service on a stale registered address, or service on an entity that had ceased operations at the address all present real arguments.

Find the agreement. A forum selection clause designating a different court, or an arbitration clause the plaintiff bypassed, is a discretionary ground under § 4(c)(5) and one of the cleanest available. Read every contract between the parties.

Look for the penal element. Sums characterized as fines, penalties, or punitive damages fall outside the act under § 3. The compensatory portion is generally severable, so this narrows rather than defeats — but narrowing a €10 million judgment to €3 million is a good day.

Consider the SPEECH Act wherever the claim sounds in defamation, however it is labeled abroad. The burden shifts to the creditor, and fees are available.

Raise finality. Is an appeal pending? Is the judgment provisionally enforceable but not final? Section 8 permits a stay, and a stay conditioned on security is far better for a debtor than a domestic judgment.

Do not overreach on public policy. Arguing that a foreign system's absence of jury trial, its fee-shifting, or its different substantive rule is repugnant to public policy fails and costs credibility on the arguments that might have worked.

Consider the collection posture instead. Many debtors would be better served by conceding recognition and litigating collection — exemptions, the charging order's exclusivity, execution immunity for a sovereign, or a negotiated payment structure — than by mounting a doomed defense that adds fees to a judgment that will be recognized anyway.

And check whether the creditor waited too long. The limitations defense is absolute and is the one most often available and least often raised.

Planning ahead: drafting for enforceability

Most enforcement problems are created at contracting, years before anyone considers suing. A transactional lawyer who understands the enforcement landscape can eliminate them cheaply.

Prefer arbitration for cross-border contracts. This is the single most valuable drafting decision. An award under the New York Convention is enforceable in more than 170 countries subject to seven narrow defenses, with no merits review. A judgment from a foreign court is enforceable in the United States only through state recognition law, and American judgments face similarly uneven treatment abroad. If the counterparty's assets are outside the United States, arbitration converts an enforcement problem into a filing.

Choose the seat deliberately, not just the institution. The seat determines the supervisory court, the annulment standard, and whether an award set aside at the seat can still be enforced elsewhere. New York, London, Singapore, Geneva, and Paris are conventional for reasons that matter.

If litigation is chosen, designate a forum whose judgments the other side's home courts will enforce, and confirm that with local counsel rather than assuming.

Secure the obligation. A guaranty from a parent in a favorable jurisdiction, a letter of credit, a standby, an escrow, or a security interest in identifiable assets is worth more than any dispute resolution clause, because it does not require winning first.

Include a consent to jurisdiction and an appointment of an agent for service in the United States. This eliminates the two most common recognition defenses in the mirror-image case, and it costs a paragraph.

Address currency expressly — the currency of the obligation, the conversion date, and the rate source. Litigating conversion after the fact is expensive and unpredictable.

Include a fee-shifting provision, which many foreign systems will honor and which materially changes the economics of enforcement.

Waive sovereign immunity explicitly where a state entity is a counterparty, covering both jurisdictional immunity and immunity from execution, and identifying commercial property against which execution may proceed. A waiver of jurisdiction alone leaves the creditor with an unenforceable judgment, which is the outcome § 1610 produces routinely.

Know where the assets are before you sign. A counterparty whose only substantial assets sit in a jurisdiction that will not enforce anything is a credit decision, not a drafting problem — and it is one worth making consciously.

The mirror image: enforcing an American judgment abroad

Clients ask this constantly, and the answer is uncomfortable enough that it should be given early.

There is no reciprocal obligation. The United States has no judgments treaty in force, so American judgments abroad are governed by each foreign country's own recognition law, which varies from generous to effectively prohibitive.

The recurring obstacles:

Reciprocity requirements. A number of civil law jurisdictions recognize foreign judgments only where the rendering state would reciprocate. Because the United States has no uniform national rule and no treaty, establishing reciprocity can be difficult or, in some countries, impossible as a practical matter.

Excessive damages. Punitive damages, treble damages under statutes such as RICO or the Clayton Act, and large non-economic awards are frequently refused as contrary to public policy. Several European courts have refused the punitive portion while enforcing the compensatory part, and others have refused the whole.

Jurisdictional review. Many systems apply their own jurisdictional standards to the rendering court, and American long-arm bases — general jurisdiction by doing business, tag jurisdiction from transient presence, minimum contacts — are regarded as exorbitant in several jurisdictions and will not support recognition.

Service. Where the defendant was served in a Hague Service Convention country by a method that country objected to under Article 10, recognition may be refused for defective service even though the American court accepted it. This is why service method matters at the beginning of the case and not only at the end.

Class actions and contingency fees. Both are regarded with suspicion in several systems, and an opt-out class judgment may be unenforceable.

Discovery. A judgment obtained after American-style discovery that a foreign court considers oppressive may draw public policy objections.

Practical guidance. Where a defendant's assets are abroad, decide at the outset whether the American judgment will be worth anything, and consult foreign counsel before filing rather than after winning. Where the answer is unfavorable, consider suing where the assets are, arbitrating instead, or obtaining security. A judgment that cannot be enforced is an expensive declaration.

Related articles

This guide is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Recognition of foreign judgments is governed by state law and differs among the states, including in which uniform act has been adopted and what limitations period applies. There is no treaty in force obliging United States courts to enforce foreign-country judgments. Consult counsel admitted in the state where recognition will be sought, and foreign counsel in the rendering country, before filing.