Did Texas's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act give a judgment debtor due process, require notice from the clerk, and allow execution 30 days after filing?

Texas AG Opinion JM-715: Enforcing Foreign Judgments

Plain-English summary

The Harris County Attorney asked whether Texas's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act violated due process, whether the clerk had to notify the judgment debtor, and when the clerk could issue a writ of execution. The Attorney General concluded that the act supplied a procedure for challenging a foreign judgment and did not deny due process. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Once filed, a foreign judgment had the same effect and was subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings as a judgment of the Texas court in which it was filed. That treatment allowed a debtor to seek reopening, vacation, a stay, or other available relief. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

The clerk was required to mail notice of the filing to the judgment debtor under section 35.004(b), along with the notice duties imposed by Rule 306a(3). The opinion also concluded that waiting 30 days after filing before execution was consistent with chapter 35, due process, and Rule 627. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a debtor challenge a foreign judgment filed in Texas?

Yes. The opinion read section 35.003(c) as placing the judgment in the same posture as a domestic judgment, including the same procedures and defenses for reopening, vacating, staying, enforcing, or satisfying it. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Did chapter 35 violate due process?

No. The opinion concluded that the available procedures and the debtor's opportunity to seek a stay or challenge the judgment satisfied due process. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Who had to mail notice of the filing?

The clerk had to promptly mail notice to the judgment debtor under section 35.004(b). The opinion also cited Rule 306a(3)'s notice requirement. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

When could a writ of execution issue?

The opinion said the clerk could issue execution 30 days after the foreign judgment was filed, consistent with Rule 627. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Could Texas reexamine whether the foreign court had jurisdiction?

The opinion noted that a Texas court could inquire into the foreign court's jurisdictional basis, but the inquiry was limited when that jurisdictional question had already been fully considered and finally determined. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 35 allowed an authenticated judgment from another state or a federal court to be filed in a Texas court of competent jurisdiction. The filed judgment then received the same effect and enforcement procedures as a judgment of that Texas court. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

The act provided notice, stay, appeal, and fee rules. The opinion read those provisions together with Rules 306a(3) and 627 to answer the clerk's notice and execution questions. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Citations and references

• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 35.001 et seq.
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(3), 627
• U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1
• Schwartz v. F.M.I. Properties Corp., 714 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life, 455 U.S. 691 (1982)
• Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948)
• Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343 (1942)
• Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 4 L. Ed. 378 (1818)
• Gedeon v. Gedeon, 630 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1981)
• Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)
• Merritt v. Harless, 685 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1984, no writ)
• Attorney General Opinion JM-11 (1983)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0715
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0715.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
June 2, 1987
JIM MATTOX
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Honorable Mike Driscoll Opinion No. JM-715
Harris County Attorney
1001 Preston, Suite 634 Re: Constitutionality of the Uniform
Houston, Texas 77002 Enforcement of Judgments Act, section
35.001 et seq., Civil Procedures and
Remedies Code, and related questions
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
You request an opinion on the following questions:

1. Does the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments
   Act, Civil Practice and Remedies Code section
   35.001 et seq., violate due process?
2. Is the clerk required to send the judgment
   debtor notice?
3. When may the clerk issue a writ of execu-
   tion pursuant to said act?
   Chapter 35 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, titled
   “Enforcement of Judgments of Other States" provides:
   §35.001. Definition
   In this chapter, ‘foreign judgment’ means a
   judgment, decree, or order of a court of the
   United States or of any other court that is
   entitled to full faith and credit in this state.
   §35.002. Short Title
   This chapter may be cited as the Uniform
   Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
   §35.003. Filing and Status of Foreign Judgments
   (a) A copy of a foreign judgment authenticated
   in accordance with an act of congress or a statute
   of this state may be filed in the office of the
   clerk of any court of competent jurisdiction of
   this state.
   }
   ae
   (b) The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment
   in the same manner as a judgment of the court in
   which the foreign judgment is filed.
   (c) A filed foreign judgment has the same
   effect and is subject to the same procedures,
   defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating,
   staying, enforcing, or satisfying a judgment as a
   judgment of the court in which it is filed.
   §35.004. Affidavit; Notice of Filing
   (a) At the time a foreign judgment is filed,
   the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's
   attorney shall file with the clerk of the court an
   affidavit showing the name and last known post
   office address of the judgment debtor and the
   ; judgment creditor.
   (b) The clerk shall promptly mail notice of
   the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment
   debtor at the address given and shall note the
   mailing in the docket.
   (c) The notice must include the name and post
   office address of the judgment creditor and if the
   judgment creditor has an attorney in this state,
   the attorney's name and address.
   §35.005. Alternate Notice of Filing -- Judgment
   Creditor
   (a) The judgment creditor may mail a notice of
   the filing of the judgment to the judgment debtor
   and may file proof of mailing with the clerk.
   (b) A clerk's lack of mailing the notice of
   filing does not affect the enforcement proceedings
   if proof of mailing by the judgment creditor has
   been filed.
   §35.006. Stay
   (a} I£ the judgment debtor shows the court
   that an appeal from the foreign judgment is
   pending or will be taken or that a stay of
   execution has been granted and proves that the
   judgment debtor has furnished the security for the
   satisfaction of the judgment required by the state
   in which it was rendered, the court shall stay :
   enforcement of the foreign judgment until the
   om
   appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires,
   or the stay of execution expires or is vacated.
   (b) If the judgment debtor shows the court a
   ground on which enforcement of a judgment of the
   court of this state would be stayed, the court
   shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for
   an appropriate period and require the same
   security for satisfaction of the judgment that is
   required in this state.
   §35.007. Fees
   (a) A person filing a foreign judgment shall
   pay to the clerk of the court the amount as
   otherwise provided by law for filing suit in the
   courts of this state.
   (b) Filing fees are due and payable at the
   time of filing.
   (c) Fees for other enforcement proceedings are
   ~ as provided by law for judgments of the courts of
   this state.
   §35.008. Optional Procedure
   A judgment creditor retains the right to bring
   an action to enforce a judgment instead of pro-
   ceeding under this chapter.
   Your concern relative to deprivation of due process stems from
   dictum appearing in Schwartz v. F.M.I. Properties Corp., 714 S.W.2d
   97, 100 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), in
   which that court questioned the absence of a procedure set forth in
   the act for the debtor to challenge the judgment of another state.
   The United States Supreme Court in Underwriters National
   Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life, 455 U.S. 691 (1982) stated:
   The concept of full faith and credit is central
   to our system of jurisprudence. Ours is a union
   of States, each having its own judicial system
   capable of adjudicating the rights and responsi-
   bilities of the parties brought before it. Given
   this structure, there is always a risk that two or
   more States will exercise their power over the
   same case or controversy, with the uncertainty,
   confusion, and delay that necessarily accompany
   relitigation of the same issue. See Sherrer v.
   Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343, 355 (1948); Riley v. New
   York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343, 348-349 (1942).
   Recognizing that this risk of relitigation inheres
   in our federal system, the Framers provided that
   "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each
   State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
   Proceedings of every other State.' U. S. Const.
   Art IV, §1. This Court has consistently
   recognized that, in order to fulfill this
   . constitutional mandate, ‘the judgment of a state
   court should have the same credit, validity,
   and effect, in every other court of the United
   States, which it had in the state where it was
   pronounced.’ Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat 234,
   235, 4 L Ed 378 (1818) (Marshall, C. J.); Riley v.
   New York Trust Co., supra, at 353.
   The Colorado Supreme Court (Colorado adopted the Uniform Act in
   1969) in Gedeon v. Gedeon, 630 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1981), addressed the
   subject of due process rights under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign
   Judgments Act. In an appeal from a trial court's judgment recognizing
   a judgment from the State of New Mexico, the court stated:
   Appellant also challenges the constitutionality
   of the notice provisions of the Act. The Act ™
   requires only that the judgment debtor be notified
   by mail at his last known address. Appellant
   claims that the procedure of entering the judgment
   without formal notice or the requirement of a
   hearing is an unconstitutional taking of property
   without due process of law. See Fuentes v.
   Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556
   (1972). We do not agree.
   Fuentes, supra, and its progeny required only
   that pre-judgment garnishment and attachment
   procedures comport with the strict requirements of
   due process notice and hearing. This action
   involves a post~judgment procedure. The basic
   requirements of notice and hearing have been met
   by the New Mexico court which rendered the
   original judgment. The appellee seeks merely to
   enforce her judgment against her ex-spouse.
   630 P.2d at 582.
   Section 35.003(c) provides that "[a] filed foreign judgment has
   the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and
   proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, enforcing, or satisfying
   a judgment as a judgment of the court in which it is filed.” _
   (Emphasis added).
   In Attorney General Opinion JM-11 (1983), the provision set forth
   in section 35.007(c) (then, article 2328b-5, V.T.C.S.) providing "Fees
   for other enforcement proceedings are as provided by law for judgments
   of the courts of this state" was found to "plainly provide" for fees
   "the same as those provided by law for enforcement of judgments of the
   courts of this state."
   In Merritt v. Harless, 685 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1984,
   no writ), the trial court had denied the filing of and execution on a
   Florida judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court was
   without authority to take such action, and stated:
   We are directed by section 7 of article 2328b-5
   [now section 35.003] to interpret and construe
   this act to achieve its general purpose, i.e., the
   uniform enforcement of foreign judgments. To
   accomplish this purpose, we are instructed to give
   the same effect to foreign judgments that we would
   give to an identical judgment rendered in the
   Texas court where filed.
   It is our opinion that section 35.003(c) has the effect of
   ~ placing a foreign judgment in the same posture as a domestic judgment
   ' in that the foreign judgment is subject to the same procedures,
   defenses and proceedings as a judgment of the court in which it is
   filed. Consequently, we cannot say that chapter 35 "Enforcement of
   Judgments of Other States" does not provide a procedure for the debtor
   to challenge the judgment of another state filed pursuant to the act.
   We are of the opinion that the issue you have presented relative to
   chapter 35 does not reflect a deprivation of due process.
4. In Schwartz v. F.M.I. Properties Corporation, supra, the
   debtors filed a bill of review challenging a New York judgment
   registered in Texas. The court held that the debtors failed to
   present the meritorious defense required to obtain relief under a bill
   of review and that the New York judgment was entitled to full faith
   and credit.
   In Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life,
   supra, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that before a court is bound by
   the judgment rendered in another State, it may inquire into the
   jurisdictional basis of the foreign court's decree since full faith
   and credit need not be given if the court did not have jurisdiction
   over the subject matter or the relevant parties. However, the court
   . concluded the inquiry is limited to whether the question was fully
   considered and finally determined.
   The answers to your remaining questions are governed by the
   requirement that a foreign judgment be treated as identical to
   judgments rendered in the Texas court where it is filed and is
   "subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings." In
   addition to the requirement that the clerk “promptly mail notice of
   the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor" imposed
   by section 35.004(b), V.T.C.S, Rule 306a(3) of the Texas Rules of
   Civil Procedure, requires that the clerk give notice to the parties or
   their attorneys upon the signing of a final judgment.
   With respect to the issuance of a writ of execution you state
   that the clerk in Harris County prefers to wait 30 days after the
   filing of the foreign judgment. You further state that it has been
   the practice of the judgment creditor to not request that execution
   issue until the expiration of such 30 day period. This procedure
   would appear to be in harmony with Rule 627 of the Texas Rules of
   Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part:
   If no supersedeas bond or notice of appeal, as
   required of agencies exempt from filing bonds, has
   been filed and approved, the clerk of the court or
   justice of the peace shall issue the execution
   upon such judgment upon application of the
   successful party or his attorney after the
   expiration of thirty days from the time a final
   judgment is signed.
   Since the foreign judgment has already been signed when it
   reaches the clerk of the court, the filing of the judgment is the
   first affirmative act to be taken upon the judgment in this state. It
   is at this juncture that the judgment is for the first time placed in
   a position to be subjected to the same procedures, defenses and
   proceedings “as a judgment of the court in which it is filed." This
   is the first time that the debtor has an opportunity to attempt to
   stay the enforcement of the foreign judgment upon a showing of the
   . contingencies contained in section 35.006. We believe that the 30 day
   waiting period after filing of the foreign judgment before issuance of
   execution to be in harmony with the act, the requirement of due
   process and the spirit of Rule 627 of the Texas Rules of Civil
   Procedure.
   SUMMARY
   Chapter 35 of the Civil Practice and Remedies
   Code, Titled “Enforcement of Judgments of Other
   States" provides a procedure for a debtor to
   challenge a foreign judgment and is not violative
   of the due process clause. The clerk of the court
   is required to mail notice of the filing of the _
   foreign judgment to the judgment debtor as provided
   in section 35.004(b) of the Civil Practice and
   Remedies Code and Rule 306a(3) of the Texas Rules
   of Civil Procedure. The clerk may, pursuant to
   Rule 627 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
   issue a writ of execution 30 days after the filing
   of the foreign judgment.
   Very truly yours,
   JIM MATTOX
   Attorney General of Texas
   JACK HIGHTOWER
   First Assistant Attorney General
   MARY KELLER
   Executive Assistant Attorney General
   JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
   Special Assistant Attorney General
   RICK GILPIN
   Chairman, Opinion Committee
   Prepared by Tom G. Davis
   Assistant Attorney General