Jurisdiction:
Area of Law:
Question:
Selected Answer:
Generally, the answer is
Submitted by DakotaLegal on
All Comments
Generally, the answer is
Submitted by DakotaLegal on
Generally, the answer is going to be “No.” Foreign courts have to have specific powers and laws in order to “cross” borders. The one big exception to everything we’ll discuss here is the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (FCMJRA). The FCMJRA does allow many money awards to be enforced. You can study to see how the facts match up: http://www.duanemorris.com/articles/static/richman_njlawyer_0210.pdf. One problem is going to be how you’re using the word “jurisdiction.” Some things it does not mean include any sort of Canadian power to hold court or hearings and enforce orders directly within the United States. Any power that a Canadian small claims court uses is going to have to come from a request to have a US court enforce an order, or to “reduce” the judgment. Since you’re writing from Michigan, we’re going to look mostly at Michigan state courts rules. I’m also going to start with the idea that you are trying to avoid having a Canadian judgment enforced in the US. This will be most useful, since anyone trying to enforce a Canadian judgment is going to have some obstacles and obligations to meet, over the objections of a US citizen or legal resident, who is trying to avoid that foreign (i.e., in this case, Canadian) jurisdiction. One helpful place to get help is from your local Congressional representative: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/. Another big issue is going to be what kind of decision or judgment the Canadian judgment decided. For example, if it’s a US federal (as opposed to Michigan State) law, then this makes it even more expensive and complicated to enforce a Canadian judgment in the US. A US federal law usually has to be brought in a US federal court. Here’s a case involving an effort to avoid paying gas taxes after a judgment ordered the payments. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1015159.html. Since it was a federal issue involving a Canadian business deal, the Michigan state court could not take it. To get into a Michigan state court, a Canadian judgment has to be allowed by Michigan law. Circuit courts in Michigan, though, are what are known as “courts of general jurisdiction,” giving them original jurisdiction over all civil claims and remedies… unless the Michigan Constitution or MCL 600.601 gives exclusive jurisdiction to another court. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(oqzw4njocw02a455ph40m5rs))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-601. There are no specific laws allowing or stopping a Michigan state court from enforcing a Canadian small claims order. Michigan state courts are allowed to use prior decisions and even what are called “restatements” of the law. Most commonly, there has to be what are called “substantial contacts” in order to enforce any foreign court order. Measuring these contacts is something a court is supposed to do before it even formally hears a case. Deciding substantial contacts is done by seeing where a person lives, or did business, or committed an act….from driving to making phone calls to doing business. There’s also the Michigan “long arm” statute that has to be decided by a state court. Here are three typical ways a Canadian order might be enforced under Michigan jurisdiction: (1) The transaction of any business within the state; (2) The doing or causing of any act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort; (3) The ownership, use, or possession of any real or tangible personal property situated within the state. Here’s an example of Michigan’s thinking in terms of enforcing a foreign judgment: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1212364.html. This does not mean things won’t change, and make it easier to have Canadian rulings enforced in the US. The United States has not (yet) signed any treaty or agreement to allow for the specific enforcement of foreign judgments. Canada and dozens of other countries have signed what’s called the Hague Convention, regarding jurisdictional questions. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=states.listing. The US has not signed this agreement.
Generally, the answer is going to be “No.” Foreign courts have to have specific powers and laws in order to “cross” borders. The one big exception to everything we’ll discuss here is the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (FCMJRA). The FCMJRA does allow many money awards to be enforced. You can study to see how the facts match up: http://www.duanemorris.com/articles/static/richman_njlawyer_0210.pdf. One problem is going to be how you’re using the word “jurisdiction.” Some things it does not mean include any sort of Canadian power to hold court or hearings and enforce orders directly within the United States. Any power that a Canadian small claims court uses is going to have to come from a request to have a US court enforce an order, or to “reduce” the judgment. Since you’re writing from Michigan, we’re going to look mostly at Michigan state courts rules. I’m also going to start with the idea that you are trying to avoid having a Canadian judgment enforced in the US. This will be most useful, since anyone trying to enforce a Canadian judgment is going to have some obstacles and obligations to meet, over the objections of a US citizen or legal resident, who is trying to avoid that foreign (i.e., in this case, Canadian) jurisdiction. One helpful place to get help is from your local Congressional representative: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/. Another big issue is going to be what kind of decision or judgment the Canadian judgment decided. For example, if it’s a US federal (as opposed to Michigan State) law, then this makes it even more expensive and complicated to enforce a Canadian judgment in the US. A US federal law usually has to be brought in a US federal court. Here’s a case involving an effort to avoid paying gas taxes after a judgment ordered the payments. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1015159.html. Since it was a federal issue involving a Canadian business deal, the Michigan state court could not take it. To get into a Michigan state court, a Canadian judgment has to be allowed by Michigan law. Circuit courts in Michigan, though, are what are known as “courts of general jurisdiction,” giving them original jurisdiction over all civil claims and remedies… unless the Michigan Constitution or MCL 600.601 gives exclusive jurisdiction to another court. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(oqzw4njocw02a455ph40m5rs))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-601. There are no specific laws allowing or stopping a Michigan state court from enforcing a Canadian small claims order. Michigan state courts are allowed to use prior decisions and even what are called “restatements” of the law. Most commonly, there has to be what are called “substantial contacts” in order to enforce any foreign court order. Measuring these contacts is something a court is supposed to do before it even formally hears a case. Deciding substantial contacts is done by seeing where a person lives, or did business, or committed an act….from driving to making phone calls to doing business. There’s also the Michigan “long arm” statute that has to be decided by a state court. Here are three typical ways a Canadian order might be enforced under Michigan jurisdiction: (1) The transaction of any business within the state; (2) The doing or causing of any act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort; (3) The ownership, use, or possession of any real or tangible personal property situated within the state. Here’s an example of Michigan’s thinking in terms of enforcing a foreign judgment: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1212364.html. This does not mean things won’t change, and make it easier to have Canadian rulings enforced in the US. The United States has not (yet) signed any treaty or agreement to allow for the specific enforcement of foreign judgments. Canada and dozens of other countries have signed what’s called the Hague Convention, regarding jurisdictional questions. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=states.listing. The US has not signed this agreement.