The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, requires a state to enforce a judgment rendered in another state, but only where all parties were provided reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Washoe Development Company v. Guaranty Federal Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1521.) If a sister-state judgment was obtained in violation of constitutional protections, including due process, full faith and credit must be denied. (State of Arizona ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Yuen (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 169, 179.)

“The full faith and credit provision of the Constitution is designed to provide a method of proving the record of a judicial proceeding in one state for the express purpose of carrying out the result of that proceeding in other states.” (In re Laura F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 583, 592-593.) This provision requires that the judgment of another state “be given as much effect in the state of the forum as in the state of its rendition.” (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 201; Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1710.10, et seq.; Martin v. Martin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 752, 762 fn.13.)

Legal Standard

“As long as the sister state court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a sister state judgment is entitled to full faith and credit ‘even as to matters of law or fact erroneously decided.’” (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 118.)

However, a judgment entered based on a sister state judgment “may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1710.40(a).) This includes failure to acquire jurisdiction through proper service in the sister state. (Fidelity Creditor Service v. Browne (2001 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 202.)

Where service in the sister state was proper, moving party must “plead and prove a viable defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment.” (Conseco Marketing LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.) Common defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following:

1. the judgment is not final and unconditional;
2. the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction;
3. the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud;
4. the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition;
5. the judgment has already been paid;
6. the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct; or
7. suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought.”

(Washoe Development Co. v. Guaranty Federal Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1522.)

“The party moving under section 1710.40 to set aside the sister state judgment has ‘the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief.’” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.)

Procedure

When an application for enforcement of a sister-state judgment is filed, a judgment debtor has thirty days from service in which to challenge the sister-state judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1710.40(b).) Challenges to the judgment on the grounds that there was no subject matter or personal jurisdiction in the underlying action may, however, be made at any time. (Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 19-20.) A challenge to jurisdiction in California does not waive the jurisdictional defense to the underlying action. (Id. at 21-22.)