Norkan Lodge Co. Ltd. v. Gillum
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16152, 587 F.Supp. 1457 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, a foreign judgment is enforceable unless the defendant proves one of the specific statutory grounds for non-recognition, such as lack of personal jurisdiction, which is waived if the defendant makes a voluntary general appearance in the foreign proceeding.
Facts:
- Randy Gillum and his agents allegedly committed trespass and conversion on property in Canada belonging to Norkan Lodge Company Limited.
- Gillum was served with notice of a lawsuit filed against him by Norkan in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Canada.
- Gillum hired Canadian legal counsel to represent him in the matter.
- Through his counsel, Gillum filed an answer to Norkan's claims in the Canadian court.
- Gillum traveled to Canada and personally appeared for his deposition as part of the legal proceedings.
- At a later date, Gillum's Canadian counsel withdrew from the case.
- Despite receiving notice of the trial date, Gillum failed to obtain new counsel and did not appear at the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Canada, entered a default judgment in favor of Norkan against Gillum.
- Gillum did not appeal the judgment in the Canadian court system.
- Norkan filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to enforce the Canadian money judgment.
- Norkan filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
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 Texas Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, are a defendant's claims of lack of personal jurisdiction, fraud, violation of public policy, and lack of reciprocity sufficient to prevent enforcement of a Canadian judgment when the defendant voluntarily participated in the initial foreign proceedings but failed to appear at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, District Judge
No. The Canadian judgment is enforceable because Gillum failed to establish any statutory grounds for non-recognition. Gillum waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by voluntarily appearing in the Canadian proceedings—hiring counsel, filing an answer, and sitting for a deposition constitute a general appearance, not a special appearance to contest jurisdiction. His allegations of fraud are merely disagreements with the evidence and credibility determinations made by the Canadian court, which he forfeited the right to challenge by failing to appear at trial. The underlying cause of action, trespass and conversion, is not repugnant to Texas public policy, and Gillum failed to meet his burden of establishing that Canadian courts would not recognize a similar Texas judgment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, reinforcing the principle of comity toward foreign legal systems. It establishes that a defendant cannot strategically participate in the initial stages of foreign litigation and then, upon receiving an unfavorable outcome after defaulting at trial, seek refuge in a U.S. court by challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction. The decision sets a high bar for defendants seeking to invoke the Act's exceptions, placing a heavy burden of proof on them to demonstrate fraud, public policy violations, or lack of reciprocity, and distinguishes mere evidentiary disputes from the type of extrinsic fraud required to nullify a foreign judgment.
