O.C.G.A. § 9-12-113 (2019)
Recognition and enforcement of foreign-country judgments
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment meeting the requirements of Code Section 9-12-112. (b) A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if: (1) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; (2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. (4) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend; (5) The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case; (6) The judgment or cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States; (7) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; (8) The proceedings in the foreign court were contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in such foreign court;
(9) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action; (10) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to such judgment; or (11) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (c) A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection (b) of this Code section exists.
History
(Ga. L. 1975, p. 479, §§ 3, 4; Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 2-1/SB 65.)
Annotations
Cross references. - Nonrecognition of foreign judgment attempting to modify Georgia judgment awarding permanent alimony or support, § 19-6-26. Application for permanent alimony or child support by person after grant of divorce to person’s spouse in foreign country, § 19-6-27. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 1-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Debtor Creditor Uniform Law Modernization Act of 2015.’ ‘‘(b) To promote consistency among the states, it is the intent of the General Assembly to modernize certain existing uniform laws promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission affecting debtor and creditor rights, responsibilities, and relationships and other federally recognized laws affecting such rights, responsibilities, and relationships.’’ Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 7-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part: ‘‘Part 2 of this Act shall apply to all actions filed on or after July 1, 2015, in which the recognition of a foreign country judgment is raised.’’
Law reviews. - For article discussing the enforcement of money judgments rendered in foreign jurisdictions in light of
the establishment of the foreign business enterprise in Georgia, see 27 Mercer L. Rev. 629 (1976).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Foreign judgment shall not be recognized by the courts of this state if the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Berry v. Jeff Hunt Mach. Co., 148 Ga. App. 35, 250 S.E.2d 813 (1978). Trial court erred in domesticating foreign judgment. - Trial court erred when the court domesticated a judgment a seller obtained against a purchaser from the courts of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, because the seller provided no evi-
dence under the Georgia Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-12-114(10), that judgments of courts of the United States and of states thereof of the same type and based on substantially similar jurisdictional grounds were recognized and enforced in Dubai. Shehadeh v. Alexander, 315 Ga. App. 479, 727 S.E.2d 227 (2012). Cited in Kronitz v. Fifth Ave. Dance Studio, Inc., 242 Ga. 398, 249 S.E.2d 80 (1978).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments, §§ 770, 772, 788 et seq., 798, 801. C.J.S. - 50 C.J.S., Judgments, §§ 1273 et seq., 1325, 1358, 1359. U.L.A. - Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (U.L.A.) §§ 3, 4. ALR. - Recent variations in rate of foreign exchange as affecting damages for tort, 20 ALR 899. Conclusiveness as to merits of judgment of courts of foreign country, 46 ALR 439; 148 ALR 991. Conclusiveness of decision of sister state on a contested hearing as to its own jurisdiction, 52 ALR 740.
Interlocutory judgment or decree in one state as bar to an action in another state, 84 ALR 721. Validity and enforceability of judgment entered in sister state under a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, 39 ALR2d 1232. Injunction against suit in another state or country for divorce or separation, 54 ALR2d 1240. Judgment of court of foreign country as entitled to enforcement or extraterritorial effect in state court, 13 ALR4th 1109. Validity, construction, and application of Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 31 ALR4th 706.