ORS 24.360
Standards for recognition of foreign-country judgment


Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which ORS 24.350 (Definitions for ORS 24.350 to 24.400) to 24.400 (Short title) apply.


A court of this state may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if:


The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;


The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or


The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.


A court of this state need not recognize a foreign-country judgment if:


The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend;


The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present the party’s case;


The judgment or the claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States;


The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;


The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined other than by proceedings in that foreign court;


In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;


The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment; or


The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.


A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection (2) or (3) of this section exists. [2009 c.48 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 24.220)

Where, under California law, foreign judgment was found to be “final and conclusive and enforceable” it was, pursuant to this section, duly registered and enforceable as though it were an Oregon judgment and trial court did not abuse discretion in refusal to stay execution of judgment pursuant to ORCP 72 until there was resolution of independent California suit regarding party’s liability under judgment. River City Bank v. DeBenedetti, 90 Or App 624, 752 P2d 1305 (1988)

Where collection action is commenced in Oregon court to enforce foreign judgment, Oregon law applies to allowance of cost and litigation expenses incurred in collection action. Holder v. Elg, 151 Or App 329, 948 P2d 763 (1997)

Chapter 24

Notes of Decisions

Foreign dissolution decree need not be registered in order for court to have jurisdiction to modify decree. Walker v. Walker, 26 Or App 701, 554 P2d 591 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

57 OLR 377 (1978)

Last accessed
May. 15, 2020