Re: old judgement

Posted by Why Chat (209.240.198.61) on March 03, 2003 at 23:21:46:

In Reply to: Re: old judgement posted by Why Chat on March 03, 2003 at 22:28:14:

OK- let me change my previous post: Tx law sort of accomplishes the same thing BUT it requires a DEFENSE if the foreign judgment is filed. Excerpts below from some caselaw on the subject.My comments in "CAPS".

The United States Constitution requires that a final judgment of a sister state be given the same force and effect it would be entitled to in the rendering state. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. A properly filed foreign judgment has the effect of initiating an enforcement proceeding and instantly rendering a valid Texas judgment. Walnut Equip. Leasing Co. v. Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. 1996).
"IF THEY DID FILE, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR DEFENSE ISSUE THAT YOU DID NOT PRESENT IN THE N.M. COURT"
A foreign judgment is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, enforcing or satisfying as a judgment of the rendering court. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 35.003(c) (Vernon 1997).
In addition, Texas case law has compared the filing of a foreign judgment under section 35.003 to the entry of a no-answer default judgment, for the debtor does not have an opportunity to defend himself before the judgment is considered final, Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20, 22B23 (Tex. AppCDallas 1991, no writ), and has held that our appellate timetables apply to a foreign judgment filed in Texas. Id. at 22B25; Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286; Harbison-Fischer Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Mohawk Data Sciences Corp., 823 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1991), judgment set aside by agr., 840 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. 1992).
Applying this general law to this specific case, when Lyon Financial filed its petition and judgment under the UEFJA, it became a final Texas judgment on December 22, 1999. See Wu, 920 S.W.2d at 286. Beginning on December 22, Urso had 30 days to move for a new trial or otherwise attack the judgment. See Moncrief, 805 S.W.2d at 22B23; Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). If Urso had filed a motion for new trial, the court would have had authority to set aside the judgment until 30 days after the motion for new trial was overruled (either by lawCa total of 75 daysCor by the court).*fn3 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (e).
"HERE IS WHERE YOU CAN RAISE THE ISSUES YOU POSTED ABOUT(RETURN OF GOODS ETC."
"Into this category will fall those cases in which a default judgment is asserted to be void for want of service, or of valid service, of process."*fn5 Id. (Justice Calvert writing for the court and construing former Rule 329-b).

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup