B. A court may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following applies:

1. 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. 2. The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
3. 3. The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

C. A court may choose to not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following applies:

1. 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. 2. The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case.
3. 3. The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States.
4. 4. The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment.
5. 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. 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. 7. The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
8. 8. The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.

E. A foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if any of the following applies:

1. 1. The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign country.
2. 2. The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant.
3. 3. The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved.
4. 4. The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country.
5. 5. The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceeding in the foreign court involved a cause of action arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country.
6. 6. The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceeding involved a cause of action arising out of that operation.