Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0094

Background

Request from Texas legislator asking when Texas state courts may refuse to apply or enforce foreign (non-U.S.) law in family-law disputes, posing nineteen fact patterns all implicating due process or Texas public policy concerns.
Attorney General analyzes whether Texas judges may decline to enforce foreign judgments, arbitration awards, contract provisions (choice-of-law and forum-selection), and other family-law instruments when foreign law/procedures conflict with due process or Texas public policy.
Distinguishes substantive vs. procedural rules: Texas courts apply forum procedural law to procedural issues, but may apply foreign substantive law unless it contravenes Texas public policy or due process.
Notes statutory limits: Texas Family Code §162.023 permits refusing recognition of foreign adoption orders that violate fundamental rights or Texas public policy; Civil Practice & Remedies Code ch. 36 (Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act) governs recognition of foreign money judgments but excludes family-support judgments.
Concludes courts may refuse enforcement when foreign law, judgments, arbitration awards, contracts, forum-selection clauses, or dismissal on forum non conveniens would (a) deny due process or (b) violate Texas public policy, including specific family-law protections and unconscionability doctrines.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a judge refuse to enforce a foreign court judgment based on foreign law that violated due process or Texas public policy?	Foreign judgment should be enforced as rendered.	A foreign judgment obtained without fair trial or contrary to Texas public policy should not be enforced.	Yes — Texas courts may refuse enforcement for denial of due process or when enforcement would violate Texas public policy.
May a judge refuse to enforce an arbitration award based on foreign law or faith principles that violated due process or Texas public policy?	Arbitration awards are final and should be enforced.	Awards obtained without adequate notice/hearing or contrary to public policy may be refused.	Yes — courts may refuse to enforce arbitration awards that violated due process or are contrary to public policy.
May a judge apply forum conflict-of-law rules to reject foreign law that violates due process or Texas public policy?	Choice-of-law should allow foreign substantive law per contacts.	Forum can apply Texas procedural law and refuse foreign substantive law that offends public policy or justice.	Yes — forum applies Texas procedural rules; may refuse foreign substantive law if against good morals, natural justice, or Texas public policy.
May a judge enforce contract clauses (foreign law choice, foreign forum, custody provisions, premarital terms) that violate due process/public policy or are unconscionable?	Contractual autonomy and forum/choice provisions should be enforced.	Contracts that violate public policy, statutes, unconscionable terms, or deprive due process need not be enforced.	Yes — courts may refuse to enforce such contractual provisions when they violate due process, public policy, or are unconscionable; forum-selection can be set aside if unreasonable or contrary to strong public policy.

Key Cases Cited

Larchmont Farms, Inc. v. Parra, 941 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. 1997) (courts need not enforce foreign law contrary to Texas public policy)
Robertson v. Estate of McKnight, 609 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. 1980) (foreign law unenforceable when it violates good morals or natural justice)
Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1946) (no jurisdiction should give effect to a judgment obtained without due process)
Banco Minero v. Ross, 172 S.W. 711 (Tex. 1915) (recognition requires opportunity for a full and fair trial)
Ashfaq v. Ashfaq, 467 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (consideration whether foreign divorce law violates Texas public policy)
Ewing v. Act Catastrophe–Tex. L.C., 375 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (parties in arbitration have due process rights to notice and hearing)
Myer v. America Life, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (courts may refuse to enforce arbitration awards contrary to public policy)
In re AutoNation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. 2007) (forum-selection enforcement may be denied if unreasonable or contrary to forum public policy)
In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007) (trial courts have broad discretion on forum non conveniens motions)
Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, L.P., 246 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (contracts violating strong public policy are unenforceable)