99 A.3d 79
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Appellant Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA appeals a Montgomery County ruling striking and vacating a foreign-money-judgment against Appellee Financial Software Systems, Inc. and dissolving the garnishment of National Penn Bank.
- Appellant obtained a UK judgment (January 18, 2013) for 717,733.12 pounds and costs (total 761,733.12) and filed a praecipe to file and index in Pennsylvania on February 20, 2013.
- The writ of execution was served on National Penn Bank as garnishee on March 12, 2013; a separate Pennsylvania judgment against National Penn Bank was entered March 26, 2013.
- Appellee moved to strike and vacate and to stay execution on grounds of improper service under Hague, lack of personal jurisdiction, and unenforceability under the Enforcement Act.
- The trial court concluded the proper avenue was recognition under the Recognition Act, but Appellant filed and pursued enforcement under the Enforcement Act, leading to a void judgment; the Superior Court affirmed on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Enforcement Act can enforce foreign nation money judgments in Pennsylvania. | Dreyfus contends Enforcement Act applies. | Canady argues Enforcement Act does not apply to foreign judgments. | Enforcement Act does not apply to foreign judgments; Recognition Act required. |
| Whether Recognition Act recognition was invoked before enforcement. | Dreyfus sought enforcement without prior recognition. | Canady argues recognition not required prior to enforcement. | Appellant failed to obtain recognition before enforcement; void judgment. |
| Whether recognition under the Recognition Act is the proper procedural framework for foreign judgments. | Recognition Act provides framework for recognizing foreign judgments. | Enforcement Act would suffice to enforce foreign judgments. | Recognition Act controls; foreign judgment must be recognized before enforcement. |
| Whether comity limits or supersedes recognition/enforcement procedures. | Comity supports recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. | Comity does not permit enforcement without recognition under the Recognition Act. | Foreign judgments are not entitled to full faith and credit; require recognition under the Recognition Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilkmann v. Hilkmann, 579 Pa. 563 (Pa. 2004) (foreign judgments subject to comity; strict procedures required for recognition)
- Somportex Ltd. v. Phila. Chewing Gum Corp., 453 F.2d 435 (3d Cir. 1971) (foreign judgments vs. sister-state judgments distinction)
- Matusevitch v. Telnikoff, 877 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1995) (recognition prerequisite before enforcement; filing alone insufficient)
- ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady, 545 F. Supp. 2d 491 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (recognition/enforcement path through federal court)
- Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 556 F. Supp. 2d 489 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (Enforcement Act limited to sister-state judgments; Recognition Act required for foreign judgments)
- Electrolines, Inc. v. Prudential Assurance Co., 677 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguishes recognition vs enforcement; comity framework)
- Hilkmann, 579 Pa. 563, 858 A.2d 58 (Pa. 2004) (procedural steps for recognition; enforcement limited without recognition)