Country of Luxembourg v. Canderas
338 N.J.Super. 192, 768 A.2d 283 (2000)
Rule of Law:
A foreign child support judgment is not enforceable in a U.S. state if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant according to U.S. constitutional standards of due process, which require the defendant to have minimum contacts with the foreign jurisdiction.
Facts:
- Jose Silvestre Tronacao Canderas and Ana Christina Fernandes Ribeiro lived together in Portugal from 1980 to 1987.
- Their daughter was conceived and born in Portugal on June 29, 1981.
- In September 1987, Canderas moved to the United States and eventually established residence in New Jersey.
- After Canderas left for the U.S., Ribeiro and their daughter moved to Luxembourg.
- Canderas has never physically visited Luxembourg and owns no property there.
Procedural Posture:
- Ana Christina Fernandes Ribeiro initiated a child support action against Jose Silvestre Tronacao Canderas in the Court of Conciliation of Esch-sur-Alzette in Luxembourg.
- Canderas was served with a summons by mail in July 1998 but did not appear in the Luxembourg proceeding.
- The Luxembourg court entered a default judgment for child support against Canderas on October 5, 1998.
- The Country of Luxembourg, on behalf of Ribeiro, sought to enforce the judgment in New Jersey under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) by registering it with the state's Child Support Enforcement Services.
- After the judgment was registered and scheduled for an enforcement hearing, Canderas filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) and principles of comity, must a New Jersey court enforce a foreign child support judgment obtained in a jurisdiction where the defendant has no minimum contacts?
Opinions:
Majority - Brock, J.S.C.
No, a New Jersey court is not required to enforce a foreign child support judgment obtained in a jurisdiction where the defendant lacks minimum contacts. Enforcing such a judgment would violate the due process standards of the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions. The court's reasoning is that personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant requires 'minimum contacts' with the forum state, as established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. In this case, Canderas had zero contacts with Luxembourg; his only connection to the case is that the plaintiff and child moved there after he had moved to the U.S. The unilateral activity of a plaintiff cannot create jurisdiction over a defendant. Because the Luxembourg court's exercise of jurisdiction over Canderas offends 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,' enforcing its default judgment would violate New Jersey's public policy, precluding enforcement under principles of comity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the constitutional due process requirement of minimum contacts is a fundamental prerequisite for enforcing foreign support orders, even under statutes like UIFSA or principles of comity. It clarifies that a defendant's complete lack of any purposeful contact with a foreign jurisdiction is fatal to an enforcement action in a U.S. court. The ruling establishes that the residence of the plaintiff and child alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Future cases involving the enforcement of international family support orders will require a rigorous analysis of the defendant's specific, purposeful contacts with the issuing foreign country.
