Background
Alterna Aircraft, an Irish lessor, leased two Boeing 737-800 aircraft to SpiceJet, an Indian airline, for approximately $230,000 monthly. Following COVID-19 travel restrictions and the 737 MAX groundings, SpiceJet fell behind on payments. After failed settlement negotiations, Alterna sued in English court—designated in the lease agreement as the dispute forum. SpiceJet made only a limited appearance and did not submit evidence at summary judgment. The English court granted judgment for approximately $12 million.
Alterna then petitioned King County Superior Court to recognize the English judgment under Washington’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (RCW 6.40A). Although Alterna alleged SpiceJet owned personal property in King County, it identified no specific property. SpiceJet moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, declaring it was not incorporated in Washington, had no offices, employees, business operations, or assets in the state. The trial court and Court of Appeals denied the motion, holding that foreign judgment recognition requires no jurisdictional showing.
The Washington Supreme Court granted SpiceJet’s petition for review.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed and held that a judgment creditor seeking foreign judgment recognition under chapter 6.40A RCW must establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or demonstrate that the debtor has property in Washington. Absent such a jurisdictional nexus, courts lack authority to entertain recognition actions.
Writing for the majority, Justice González explained that while the statute contains no explicit jurisdictional requirement, due process and the nature of recognition proceedings demand a jurisdictional connection. Unlike automatic recognition of sister-state judgments through clerk filing under full faith and credit (requiring no judicial discretion), foreign judgment recognition requires exercise of judicial judgment. The court applied the minimum contacts standard from International Shoe Co. v. Washington and Shaffer v. Heitner, reasoning that recognition is functionally equivalent to enforcement and therefore requires the same jurisdictional predicates. The court rejected the argument that comity-based recognition operates without jurisdictional constraints, holding that the statutory scheme does not displace these constitutional requirements.
Justice Madsen dissented, arguing the majority misread the Uniform Act. She contended the statute mandates recognition (“shall recognize”) of foreign judgments meeting statutory criteria without imposing additional jurisdictional requirements. She distinguished recognition (possible without in-state property) from enforcement (requiring property for attachment), arguing the Act aimed to accord foreign judgments parity with sister-state judgments once substantive requirements were satisfied.
Key Takeaways
- Foreign judgment recognition requires either personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or attachable property in Washington; bare allegations of property are insufficient.
- The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act does not eliminate jurisdictional requirements ordinarily applicable to court actions; recognition is not a ministerial clerk function.
- Due process constrains state court authority to enter judgment-related orders absent a jurisdictional nexus to the forum, whether the action seeks original liability determination or recognition of pre-existing judgments.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly impacts cross-border commercial disputes. International commercial actors—such as airlines and equipment lessors—often operate in multiple jurisdictions with minimal presence in specific states. The holding creates a practical barrier: judgment creditors must establish a jurisdictional hook to seek recognition in Washington, even if the underlying foreign judgment was validly rendered and meets all statutory criteria. This may prevent recognition in states where debtors lack presence or attachable property, limiting enforceability of foreign judgments and potentially incentivizing collection efforts elsewhere.
The decision reflects tension between state jurisdictional limits and the Uniform Act’s legislative purpose of facilitating foreign judgment recognition. For international commercial parties, it underscores the importance of maintaining sufficient contact with potential enforcement forums and suggests that judgment debtors can use jurisdictional arguments to defeat recognition even where the foreign court properly exercised jurisdiction over them.