Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-62-105

Current through Acts effective through 7/1/2024 of the 2024 Legislative Session

Section 13-62-105 - Personal jurisdiction

(1) A foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if:

(a) The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign country;

(b) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant;

(c) The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved;

(d) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country;

(e) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceeding in the foreign court involved a claim for relief arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country; or

(f) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceeding involved a claim for relief arising out of that operation.

(2) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subsection (1) of this section is not exclusive. The courts of this state may recognize bases of personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subsection (1) of this section as sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment.

C.R.S. § 13-62-105

L. 2008: Entire R&RE, p. 101, § 1, effective August 5.

OFFICIAL COMMENT

Source: This provision is based on Section 5 of the 1962 Act. Its substance is the same as that of Section 5 of the 1962 Act, except as noted in Comment 2 below with regard to subsection 5(a)(4).

1. Under section 4(b)(2), the forum court must deny recognition to the foreign-country judgment if the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Section 5(a) lists six bases for personal jurisdiction that are adequate as a matter of law to establish that the foreign court had personal jurisdiction. Section 5(b) makes it clear that these bases of personal jurisdiction are not exclusive. The forum court may find that the foreign court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant on some other basis.

2. Subsection 5(a)(4) of the 1962 Act provides that the foreign court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant if the defendant was "a body corporate" that "had its principal place of business, was incorporated, or had otherwise acquired corporate status, in the foreign state." Subsection 5(a)(4) of this Act extends that concept to forms of business organization other than corporations.

3. Subsection 5(a)(3) provides that the foreign court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant if the defendant agreed before commencement of the proceeding leading to the foreign-country judgment to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with regard to the subject matter involved. Under this provision, the forum court must find both the existence of a valid agreement to submit to the foreign court's jurisdiction and that the agreement covered the subject matter involved in the foreign litigation resulting in the foreign-country judgment.