A. Except as otherwise provided in subsections B and C, a court of the Commonwealth shall recognize a foreign- country judgment to which this chapter applies.
§ 8.01-465.13:3.Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment.
Chapter 17.2. Uniform Foreign-country Money Judgments Recognition Act · Last amended 2014 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceThis section presumes Virginia courts will recognize a qualifying foreign-country judgment, then lists three mandatory grounds for refusal (no impartial or due-process-compliant tribunal, no personal jurisdiction, no subject-matter jurisdiction) and eight discretionary grounds for refusal, placing the burden on the party resisting recognition to prove one applies.
Full Text of § 8.01-465.13:3
B. A court of the Commonwealth 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.
C. A court of the Commonwealth need not 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 its case;
3. The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of the Commonwealth or of 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 that foreign court;
6. In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, 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; or
8. The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
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.
Plain-English Summary
Once a foreign-country judgment clears the applicability test in § 8.01-465.13:2, this section supplies the actual standard for deciding whether Virginia will recognize it. The default runs in favor of recognition: a Virginia court “shall recognize” a qualifying foreign-country judgment, unless one of the listed exceptions applies.
Three exceptions are mandatory. A court “shall not recognize” the judgment if it came from a judicial system lacking impartial tribunals or due process, if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or if the foreign court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. These go to the basic legitimacy of the foreign proceeding, and the court has no discretion once one is shown.
Eight more grounds are discretionary — a court “need not recognize” the judgment, but is not required to refuse it. These cover things like inadequate notice, fraud that denied a fair opportunity to litigate, conflict with Virginia or federal public policy, conflict with another final judgment, violation of a forum-selection agreement, a seriously inconvenient forum where jurisdiction rested only on personal service, doubts about the integrity of the rendering court, or a due-process problem in the specific proceeding that produced the judgment.
The party resisting recognition — typically the judgment debtor — carries the burden of establishing any of these grounds. Nothing like this list of grounds exists under Chapter 17.1, which is exactly why the sister-state and foreign-country recognition standards should never be treated as interchangeable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the default rule for recognizing a foreign-country judgment under this section?
A court “shall recognize” a foreign-country judgment to which the chapter applies, unless one of the listed exceptions is established.
What are the mandatory, “shall not recognize” grounds?
The judgment was rendered under a judicial system lacking impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process; the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or the foreign court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
What are examples of the discretionary “need not recognize” grounds?
Inadequate notice to the defendant, fraud that deprived the losing party of a fair opportunity to present its case, repugnance to Virginia or United States public policy, conflict with another final judgment, violation of a forum-selection agreement, a seriously inconvenient forum in personal-service-only cases, doubt about the rendering court's integrity, or a due-process problem in the specific proceeding.
Who bears the burden of proving a ground for nonrecognition?
The party resisting recognition of the foreign-country judgment.
Is a court required to refuse recognition whenever a discretionary ground exists?
No, “need not recognize” gives the court discretion, unlike the mandatory grounds in subsection B, which use “shall not.”
Amendment History
2014, c. 462.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: grounds to refuse recognition of a foreign judgment virginiawhen will virginia not recognize a foreign country judgmentdue process foreign judgment recognition virginiamandatory versus discretionary nonrecognition foreign judgment virginia