A judgment from a foreign court is not self-executing in the United States. Before you can levy on a defendant's California bank account or real estate, an American court must first recognize the foreign judgment — and no treaty obliges it to. Recognition is governed by state law, and California has a detailed statute that makes the process predictable if you qualify and fatal if you do not. Here is how it works.
No treaty — state law controls
The United States is not party to any general convention on the recognition of foreign-country court judgments, so the question is answered state by state. California adopted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, codified at Code of Civil Procedure § 1713 et seq. It applies to judgments of courts of foreign countries; judgments from other U.S. states travel under a different, more mechanical regime (the Sister State Money Judgments Act), and foreign arbitration awards are enforced under the New York Convention through the Federal Arbitration Act — a far friendlier path, which is a major reason cross-border contracts so often choose arbitration.
Which judgments qualify
The Act covers foreign-country judgments that grant or deny recovery of a sum of money and that are final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered (CCP § 1715). It does not apply to judgments for taxes, fines, or other penalties, or to judgments for support or other domestic-relations orders, which follow separate rules. The party seeking recognition bears the burden of showing the Act applies. Finality matters: a judgment still subject to ordinary appeal at home may not qualify yet, though a California court can stay proceedings while a foreign appeal runs its course.
The grounds for refusing recognition
Recognition is the default, but CCP § 1716 lists the exceptions, and they come in two tiers. A California court must not recognize the judgment if:
- it was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process;
- the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or
- the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The court may decline recognition on discretionary grounds, including: the defendant did not receive adequate notice; the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of a chance to present its case; the judgment or the underlying claim is repugnant to the public policy of California or the United States; it conflicts with another final judgment; the proceeding violated the parties' forum or arbitration agreement; or there is substantial doubt about the integrity of the specific court, or a serious due-process failure in the specific proceeding. Note what is not on the list: the American court does not retry the merits. Recognition fights are about process and jurisdiction, not about whether the foreign court got the answer right.
Procedure and the deadline
Recognition is raised by filing a California action on the judgment — or by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense in pending litigation (CCP § 1718). Once recognized, the foreign judgment is enforceable exactly like a California judgment: liens, levies, wage garnishment, debtor examinations, and the rest of the state's judgment-enforcement toolkit. Timing is unforgiving: the action must be brought before the judgment expires in the foreign country or within ten years of the date it became effective there, whichever is earlier (CCP § 1721). Creditors who wait while pursuing assets elsewhere can time-bar themselves in California without realizing it.
Practical playbook for creditors and defendants
- Creditors: gather the foreign record early — authenticated judgment, certified translation, proof of service and of finality — and run an asset investigation in California before filing, so recognition converts directly into levies.
- Creditors: if the debtor has assets in several states, compare recognition statutes; filing where the assets are is usually right, and California recognition reaches only California enforcement.
- Defendants: the jurisdiction and due-process grounds are the live defenses — how you were served abroad, whether you had contacts with the foreign forum, and what the foreign procedure allowed you to contest.
- Everyone drafting contracts: if the counterparty's assets are in the U.S., think hard before agreeing to litigate abroad; an arbitration clause may give you a much more portable result. This is exactly the kind of enforcement-first planning that should shape any international business agreement.
Talk to a California business attorney
Whether you hold a foreign judgment against a California debtor or have just been served with a recognition action, the early procedural moves tend to decide these cases. Schedule a free consultation or call (949) 418-2113.
This article is attorney advertising and provides general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Facts matter; consult a lawyer about your specific situation.
