§ 36A.004.Standards for Recognition of Foreign-Country Judgment

Title 2. Trial, Judgment, and Appeal · Subtitle C. Judgments · Chapter 36A. Enforcement of Judgments of Other Countries · Last amended 2017 · Last verified August 29, 2026

In one sentenceSection 36A.004 requires recognition unless one of three mandatory grounds applies, permits refusal on nine discretionary grounds, and puts the burden on the party resisting.

Full Text of § 36A.004

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a)Except as otherwise provided in Subsections (b) and (c), a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this chapter applies.

(b)A court of this state may 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.

(c)A court of this state is not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment if:

(1)the defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend;

(2)the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present the party's case;

(3)the judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or the United States;

(4)the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;

(5)the proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in the foreign court;

(6)jurisdiction was based only on personal service and the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;

(7)the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment;

(8)the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law; or

(9)it is established that the foreign country in which the judgment was rendered does not recognize judgments rendered in this state that, but for the fact that they are rendered in this state, would constitute foreign-country judgments to which this chapter would apply under Section 36A.003.

(d)A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in Subsection (b) or (c) exists.

End

Plain-English Summary

The central provision, and its structure — mandatory, then discretionary — is what to hold onto.

A court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this chapter applies, except as the two lists provide.

Recognition is the default. The proponent establishes that the chapter applies, and recognition follows unless the opponent establishes a ground for refusing it.

Three grounds are mandatory — a court "may not recognize" a judgment where they exist.

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. This is an objection to the system, not to the particular case.

The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. The following section then lists six bases that foreclose the personal jurisdiction objection.

Nine grounds are discretionary — a court "is not required to recognize" a judgment where they exist.

They include inadequate notice to defend; fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case; repugnance to the public policy of Texas or the United States; conflict with another final and conclusive judgment; and proceedings contrary to an agreement to resolve the dispute elsewhere.

Also included are a seriously inconvenient forum where jurisdiction rested only on personal service; substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to that judgment; and a specific proceeding not compatible with due process.

The seventh and eighth are the case-specific counterparts of the first mandatory ground, reaching a corrupt or unfair proceeding within a system that is otherwise sound.

The ninth is reciprocity: that the foreign country does not recognize Texas judgments that would otherwise qualify. It is discretionary, so a lack of reciprocity does not compel refusal.

A party resisting recognition has the burden of establishing a ground, which completes the allocation the applicability section began.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will Texas recognize a foreign country judgment?

Yes by default, unless a mandatory ground bars recognition or the court exercises its discretion under one of the nine listed grounds.

What are the mandatory grounds?

A judicial system lacking impartial tribunals or due process, no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or no subject matter jurisdiction.

Does reciprocity matter?

It is one of the discretionary grounds. A lack of reciprocity permits but does not require refusal.

Who has the burden?

The party resisting recognition must establish that a ground exists.

Amendment History

Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 390 (S.B. 944), Sec. 1, eff. June 1, 2017.

Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from Texas Legislature Online (statutes.capitol.texas.gov). Enacted by the Texas Legislature. Current through May 14, 2026. Last verified August 29, 2026. · Official source