Affirmed and Majority Opinion and Concurring Opinions filed October 23, 

2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00622-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.H., A.H., AND E.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 306th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-FD-1631

M A J O R I T Y O P I N I O N

The Office of the Attorney General appeals the trial court’s refusal to 

register an Israeli child support order awarded to Sara Hamo after Shlomo Hamo, 

Sara’s former husband and the father of their three children, contested the 

registration, arguing that the Israeli court lacked personal jurisdiction over him 

because he was never served and that he was denied due process. The Attorney 

General contends that the record establishes that Shlomo was served with notice of 

the Israeli proceeding but failed to appear in that tribunal, and therefore full faith 

and credit principles incorporated into the Uniform Interstate Foreign Support Act 
2

(UIFSA) and the equitable doctrine of comity require registration of the judgment. 

The Attorney General also argues that Shlomo’s bare assertion that he was not 

served is an insufficient basis on which to deny registration. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sara and Shlomo Hamo married in Israel in 1984. The couple had three 

children between July 1985 and July 1991, all of whom were born in Israel. From 

1986 through 1988, however, Sarah and Shlomo lived in Tucson, Arizona, after 

which they returned to Israel. In February 1992, Shlomo left Sara and the children 

in Israel and moved to the United States. Shlomo originally lived and worked in 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, but in September 1992, Shlomo moved to 

Galveston, Texas. 

In June 1993, Sara obtained a judgment for child support against Shlomo in 

Israel, after allegedly serving Shlomo with the suit by registered mail as provided 

under Israeli law. Several years later, Shlomo was granted a rabbinical divorce in 

Galveston through proceedings initiated by Sara. One of Shlomo’s sons, Amos, 

eventually came to live with Shlomo in Galveston, and in 2002, Shlomo was 

awarded conservatorship of Amos in the 306th District Court of Galveston County.

Sara did not receive any child support payments from Shlomo. The National 

Insurance Institute of Israel paid a portion of the monthly support ordered through 

a program in which a spouse may obtain a portion of unpaid child support awards

from the Israeli government. Under Israeli law, the spouse is permitted to file suit 

against the non-paying spouse for the difference. Sara was granted permission by 

an Israeli court to seek arrearages from Shlomo equivalent to $144,763.82 as of 

August 30, 2010. 

In June 2011, the Office of the Attorney General filed a “Notice of 
3

Registration of Foreign Support Order (UIFSA)” and a “Motion to Confirm 

Support Arrearage (UFISA)” in the 306th District Court of Galveston County to 

register the 1993 Israeli court’s order and confirm the child support arrearages. 

Shlomo contested the registration arguing, among other things, that he was never 

served with process for any child support action by Sara in Israel and that 

enforcement of the order would violate his right to due process. The Attorney 

General later filed an amended notice of registration of the foreign support order, 

as well as an amended motion to confirm the support arrearage as of September 29, 

2012, now seeking the equivalent of $168,129.00. In December 2012, an associate 

judge initially heard the case and denied registration of the judgment.

The Attorney General sought a de novo hearing before the district court. At 

the hearing, Shlomo testified that the first time he had heard of the judgment 

against him for child support was in 2011, when he received the notice of 

registration from the Attorney General’s office. Shlomo denied ever being served 

with documents from the Israeli court or signing a delivery confirmation card

accepting service. Shlomo also contended that the Israeli judgment should not be 

registered because the record did not show compliance with Israeli rules of civil 

procedure.

On April 17, 2013, the district court signed an order denying registration of 

the foreign judgment, finding that Shlomo was denied due process in the 

underlying suit in Israel, he was never served with process in the underlying suit, 

and he had no notice of the suit. The district court also made extensive findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. 

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

In its first issue, the Attorney General argues that under the full faith and 

credit principles Texas adopted for foreign judgments in the UIFSA, the trial court 
4

was required to register the foreign child-support order against Shlomo because the 

record establishes that Shlomo was served with notice of the Israeli proceeding but 

failed to raise any challenge in that tribunal. In its second issue, the Attorney 

General argues that the trial court should have deferred to the Israeli tribunal’s 

personal-jurisdiction determination under the equitable doctrine of comity. In its 

third issue, the Attorney General argues that the trial court should have registered 

the Israeli support order when Shlomo offered little more than his bald assertion 

that he was not served with process.

THE UIFSA

The UIFSA is codified in chapter 159 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. 

Fam. Code §§ 159.001–.901. Under the UIFSA, a party may register a child

support or income-withholding order issued by a tribunal of another state for 

enforcement in Texas. Id. § 159.601. A “state” includes “a foreign country or 

political subdivision that has been declared to be a foreign reciprocating country or 

political subdivision under federal law.” Id. § 159.102(21)(B)(i). It is undisputed 

that Israel qualifies as a state for purposes of enforcement of support orders under 

the UIFSA. See Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in 

Child Support Enforcement, U.S.–Isr. (Feb. 5, 2009), available at

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/israel-frc.

Once registered, a support order is enforceable in the same manner and is 

subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a Texas court. Tex. Fam. 

Code § 159.603. A party contesting the registration is required to request a hearing 

and has the burden of proving one or more of eight enumerated defenses. Id. §§ 

159.606, 159.607. The defenses that may be asserted include the defense that “the 

issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party.” Id. § 

159.607(a)(1). If the contesting party does not establish a defense to the validity or 
5

enforcement of the order, the registering court must confirm the order. Id. § 

159.607(c).

Analysis of the Attorney General’s Issues

I. Full Faith and Credit and Comity

In its first issue, the Attorney General argues that under the UIFSA, child 

support orders of reciprocating countries are entitled to full faith and credit. 

Therefore, according to the Attorney General, the trial court should have registered

the Israeli child support order because the record established that Shlomo was 

served with notice of the Israeli proceeding but failed to make any challenge in that 

tribunal. In its second issue, the Attorney General argues that, even if principles of 

full faith and credit do not apply, the trial court still should have registered the 

Israeli order under the comity doctrine. 

A. Full faith and credit 

The United States Constitution requires each state to give full faith and 

credit to every other state’s public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. U.S. 

Const. art. IV, § 1; Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791, 

794 (Tex. 1992). Generally, however, states are not required to give full faith and 

credit to foreign country judgments. See Duruji v. Duruji, Nos. 14-05-01185-CV, 

14-05-01186-CV, 2007 WL 582282, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 

27, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Schacht v. Schacht, 435 S.W.2d 197, 202 

(Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1968, no writ) (stating that full faith and credit did not 

apply to require that Texas court recognize Mexican divorce decree). Once 

grounds for nonrecognition have been timely asserted, the foreign country 

judgment will not be recognized or enforced until those objections have been 

expressly overruled by the trial court. Duruji, 2007 WL 582282, at *4.
6

The UIFSA does not expressly require that full faith and credit be extended 

to qualifying foreign country judgments. Compare Tex. Fam. Code § 159.603(b) 

(“A registered order issued in another state is enforceable in the same manner and 

is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state.”), 

with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 36.004 (the “Uniform Foreign Country 

Money-Judgment Recognition Act”) (providing that a foreign country judgment 

which satisfies the statutory requirements “is enforceable in the same manner as a 

judgment of a sister state that is entitled to full faith and credit”); Tex. Fam. Code § 

162.023 (“Except as otherwise provided by law, an adoption order rendered to a 

resident of this state that is made by a foreign country shall be accorded full faith 

and credit by the courts of this state and enforced as if the order were rendered by a 

court in this state unless the adoption law or process of the foreign country violates 

the fundamental principles of human rights or the laws or public policy of this 

state.”). The Attorney General concedes that it is unaware of any cases which have 

extended full faith and credit to international support orders under UIFSA. 

Nevertheless, the Attorney General argues that the Legislature intended to 

incorporate “full faith and credit principles” into the UIFSA because the Act 

defines “state” to include qualifying foreign countries. See Tex. Fam. 

Code § 159.102(21)(B)(i). According to the Attorney General, application of full 

faith and credit principles should have defeated Shlomo’s challenge to the 

jurisdictional recitations in the Israeli record. 

Specifically, the Attorney General contends that a state must give another 

state’s judgment full faith and credit—even as to questions of jurisdiction—when 

the parties have “fully and fairly litigated and finally decided” the issue in the other 

state. See, e.g., Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 (1963). An issue is considered 

fully and fairly litigated when the party contesting jurisdiction has voluntarily 
7

appeared, presented his or her case, and been fully heard. Id. (citing Baldwin v. 

Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 U.S. 522, 525–26 (1931)). The Attorney 

General argues that the record conclusively shows that Shlomo was served with 

Sara’s claim for support consistent with Israeli rules of civil procedure, but he 

failed to contest jurisdiction and therefore cannot collaterally attack the Israeli 

tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Soc’y of Lloyd’s v. Turner, 303 F.3d 325, 331 n.20 (5th 

Cir. 2002). The Attorney General asserts that, if Shlomo was unhappy with the 

Israeli court’s decision, the appropriate forum to challenge it was in that tribunal. 

See Playnation Play Sys., Inc. v. Guajardo, No. 13-06-302-CV, 2007 WL 

1439740, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 17, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“If 

a defendant is unsatisfied with the foreign court’s ruling as to jurisdiction, the 

proper redress is to appeal within the foreign court’s judicial system.”) (citing 

Baldwin, 283 U.S. at 525).

In response, Shlomo points out that the UIFSA expressly provides that a 

foreign order is not valid and its registration will be vacated if the contesting party 

proves that the foreign tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting 

party. See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.607(a)(1). Shlomo further argues that the order of 

another state is entitled to full faith and credit only when the court had jurisdiction 

to render its judgment and, even if the record of the rendering state’s court purports 

to show jurisdiction, that court’s jurisdiction may be collaterally impeached. See 

Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 229–30 (1945); see also Cook v. Cook, 

342 U.S. 126, 128 (1951) (“If it appears on its face to be a record of a court of 

general jurisdiction, such jurisdiction over the cause and the parties is to be 

presumed unless disproved by extrinsic evidence, or by the record itself.”) (citing 

Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 62 (1938)). Likewise, our courts have held that

when asked to give full faith and credit to a foreign judgment, a Texas court may 
8

consider evidence that goes to the sister state court’s personal or subject matter 

jurisdiction over the parties. See, e.g., Gunther v. Gunther, 478 S.W.2d 821, 827 

(Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Spitzmiller v. 

Spitzmiller, 429 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, writ 

ref’d n.r.e.).

We disagree with the Attorney General that the Israeli record conclusively 

shows that Shlomo was served with Sara’s support claim in the Israeli court in 

1992 and therefore Shlomo is precluded from challenging the Israeli court’s 

jurisdiction. As explained in greater detail below, the Israeli record shows that Sara 

and her advocate presented some evidence of service at a hearing on her support 

claim, but Shlomo denied that he was served and presented evidence that the 

record of the Israeli proceeding does not contain the proof of service through mail 

that Israeli law requires. And, unlike the Playnation case cited by the Attorney 

General, Shlomo made no appearance and filed no jurisdictional or other 

challenges in the Israeli court. See Playnation, 2007 WL 1439740, at *4 (holding 

appellant had opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his claim when Georgia court’s 

judgment included jurisdictional facts reflecting that the appellant filed a limited 

appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and venue that was 

denied).

Accordingly, even if full faith and credit applies to a qualifying foreign 

country judgment under the UIFSA—an issue we need not decide—the trial court 

did not err by considering Shlomo’s evidence supporting his challenge to the 

registration of the Israeli judgment. See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.607. We overrule 

the Attorney General’s first issue.
9

B. Comity

In its second issue, the Attorney General argues that, even if full faith and 

credit principles do not apply, the trial court still should have registered the Israeli 

order under the comity doctrine. See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.104(a) (“Remedies 

provided in this chapter are cumulative and do not affect the availability of 

remedies under other law, including the recognition of a support order of a foreign 

country or political subdivision on the basis of comity.”). 

Comity is “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the 

legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to 

international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other 

persons who are under the protections of its laws.” Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 

304, 306 (Tex. 1986) (quoting Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163–64 (1895)). In 

Texas, comity has been described as “‘a principle of mutual convenience whereby 

one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of 

another.’” Id. (citing New Process Steel Corp. v. Steel Corp. of Tex., 638 S.W.2d

522, 524 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ)).

The Attorney General argues that the trial court should have respected the 

Israeli court’s determination of its jurisdiction, again asserting that the record 

conclusively belies Shlomo’s claim that he did not receive notice of the 

proceedings below. Additionally, the Attorney General contends that even if any of 

the individual requirements for service under Israeli law were not met to the letter, 

Shlomo received notice “of such nature as reasonably to convey the required 

information” that “afford[ed] a reasonable time for those interested to make their 

appearances,” which is enough to satisfy due process requirements in a collateral 

attack. See Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)

(“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding 
10

which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford 

them an opportunity to present their objections.”). Thus, the Attorney General 

maintains that the notice Shlomo received is consistent with American notions of 

due process, citing Turner Entm’t Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512, 1520 

(11th Cir. 1994) (considering whether foreign legal system “follows procedures 

that ensure that litigants will receive treatment that satisfies American notions of 

due process”).

In response, Shlomo disagrees that the doctrine of comity applies here, but 

even if it does, he argues that under either the UIFSA or comity, the Attorney 

General was required to show that Shlomo was properly served and had been 

afforded his right to due process—something Shlomo denies occurred. Further, 

Shlomo argues that in New Process Steel Corp., the court explained that a party “is 

not entitled to the application of comity as a matter of right” and held that the trial 

court’s failure to apply the doctrine to enjoin proceedings pending in another 

jurisdiction was “neither error nor an abuse of discretion.” 638 S.W.2d at 524. 

Again, for the reasons explained below, we disagree with the Attorney 

General that the record conclusively shows that Shlomo was served as required 

under Israeli court rules or that he received notice sufficient to comport with the 

requirements of due process. “[D]ue process requires that no other jurisdiction 

shall give effect, even as a matter of comity, to a judgment elsewhere acquired 

without due process.” Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220, 228 (1946) (emphasis 

added); see Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314; see also Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 295 A.2d 519, 

522 (Conn. 1972) (“A decree of divorce will not be recognized by comity where it 

was obtained by a procedure which denies due process of law in the real sense of 

the term . . . or where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction.”). On the facts of this 
11

case, the trial court was not required to recognize Sara’s support order on the basis 

of comity. We overrule the Attorney General’s second issue.

II. The Evidence Supporting the Trial Court’s Judgment

In its third issue, the Attorney General contends that, even if Shlomo were 

permitted to re-litigate de novo the Israeli court’s personal jurisdiction over him, 

his challenge still should fail “under any standard of review.” According to the

Attorney General, Shlomo’s “bald assertion that he was not served,” without more, 

is outweighed by the Attorney General’s evidence and the presumption of 

regularity in the judgment. The Attorney General further argues that, even 

assuming the evidence were in equipoise, Texas’s long-standing policy of 

protecting the best interests of its children, particularly with regard to the 

enforcement of child support obligations, should “serve as a thumb on the scale 

favoring enforcement.” See Williams v. Patton, 821 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Tex. 1991) 

(stating that “[i]t is a strong, long-standing policy of this state to protect the 

interests of its children, and this is the policy underlying the enforcement of child 

support obligations”); see also id. at 150 (“The change in focus to the best interest 

of the child came about only as society came to realize that the welfare of the child 

should be the paramount consideration in the formulation and enforcement of child 

support obligations.”) (Cornyn, J., concurring). 

As an initial matter, although we recognize the important policy of the best 

interest of the child, we disagree that this policy should be a “thumb on the scale” 

to authorize enforcement of a child support order against a party over whom the 

issuing court lacked personal jurisdiction or in violation of that party’s due process 

rights. Notably, Texas’s version of the UIFSA specifically allows a child support 

obligor to challenge the registration or enforcement of another state’s child-support 

or income-withholding order. See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.607(a)(1). Nothing in the 
12

statutory scheme suggests that a court may disregard evidence establishing a

defense permitted under this section in favor of a best-interests analysis.

We turn next to the Attorney General’s evidentiary complaint that Shlomo’s 

evidence presented in support of his registration contest is insufficient to support 

the judgment because it consists of no more than Shlomo’s bald assertion that he 

was not served. The Attorney General does not brief the issue as a challenge to the 

legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence and does not provide an applicable 

standard of review.

Generally, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order for an abuse of 

discretion. See, e.g., In re T.B., No. 07-10-00377-CV, 2012 WL 751950, at *1

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 8, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Office of the Att’y 

Gen. v. Buhrle, 210 S.W.3d 714, 717 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. 

denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and 

unreasonable it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or it clearly fails to 

correctly analyze or apply the law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 

1992).

Under a proper abuse-of-discretion review, we defer to the trial court’s 

factual findings if supported by the evidence, but we do not defer to the trial court 

on questions of law. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 598 & n.102 (Tex. 

2008). The enforcement of a foreign country judgment is a question of law we 

review de novo. See Sanchez v. Palau, 317 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); Courage Co., L.L.C. v. Chemshare Corp., 93 S.W.3d 

323, 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). We therefore review the 

record to determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to the established 

facts in deciding that Shlomo established his defense to registration of the Israeli 

judgment under the UIFSA. See In re T.B., 2012 WL 751950, at *1.
13

Although the Attorney General contends that its evidence is sufficient 

“under any standard of review,” the Attorney General’s briefing does not address 

whether an elevated standard of proof applies. At oral argument, however, the 

Attorney General asserted for the first time that the standard of proof is “clear and

convincing” evidence. Shlomo disagreed, arguing that the proper standard is 

preponderance of the evidence and pointing out that the issue had not been briefed.

We need not decide whether an elevated standard of review applies, however, 

because under any standard, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the trial 

court’s judgment.

A. The Attorney General’s evidence

In a single paragraph, the Attorney General contends that Shlomo’s evidence 

is overcome by the presumption of regularity in judgments and the following 

evidence: (1) an Israeli order authorizing service by mail on Shlomo; (2) a 

transcription of the court proceedings and verdict; and (3) a certificate of service.

Relevant here, Rule 495 of the Israeli rules of civil procedure authorizes service by 

mail as follows:

(a) Service of court documents by mail shall be by the registered mail 

with proof of delivery.

(b) The court clerk shall send the documents stamped with the court 

seal and shall record in the Action File, or in the certificate that shall 

be attached to the File, description of the documents, method of 

service and service date.

(c) Proof of delivery shall be attached to the Action File.

Rule 495, Civil Law Procedure: Civil Law Procedure Regulations 5744-1984, p. 

157 (Aryeh Greenfield – A.G. Publications ed. & trans., 11th ed. 2012).1 As 

 

1

The Attorney General provided the source for the rule and both parties agree that Rule 

495 applies in this case.
14

explained by an Israeli attorney who testified concerning Israeli law on Shlomo’s 

behalf, once service by mail is accomplished as provided in the rule, the court has 

personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

1. The Israeli order authorizing service. The evidence reflects an Israeli 

tribunal’s order of October 1992, authorizing service by mail to Shlomo Hamo at 

the address of “510 HWY 17 N #AA, Surfside Beach, S.C. 29577 (USA).” The 

summons for Sara’s support claim was dated November 16, 1992, and purports to 

enclose the “Statement of Claim” and other required documents. 

2. The Israeli court proceedings and verdict. At the hearing in June 1993, 

Sara and her advocate appeared before the Tel Aviv District Court, where the 

following exchange took place:

Adv. Zafar: Service of the summons was duly made by law following 

a decision to serve the summons outside of Israel. I submit the 

confirmation. I request a court ruling according to the statement of 

claim.

The wife [Sara]: In February my husband told me by telephone that he 

has received the claim documents. I identify my husband’s signature 

on the confirmation of delivery.

After the claim was submitted, the court announced its verdict, prefaced by the 

following: “In the absence of a statement of defense, and since [Shlomo] did not 

appear for the hearing, despite receiving service of the summons outside of the 

border . . . , I order [Shlomo] to pay the plaintiffs . . . .” However, no confirmation 

of delivery is attached to the Israeli court’s file or made an exhibit to the transcript 

of the hearing.

3. The certificate of service. The record also includes a copy of two sides 

of an untranslated certificate of service directed to a “Shlomo Hemo” (not Hamo),

at “510 Hwy 17 N. #AA, Surfside Beach, S.C. 29577, U.S.A.,” bearing an illegible 
15

signature and no clearly ascertainable service date. The parties refer to the 

document as “exhibit B2.” At the bottom of exhibit B2 is a statement signed by 

Yael Simchi, Advocate, dated September 11, 2012, stating, “I hereby certify that 

the copy above is a true copy of both sides of a double-sided certification of 

service, the original of which was presented to me.” Simchi is identified as the 

“Israeli Supervisor of the Implementation of the [Memorandum of Understanding] 

signed by the Government of the United States and the Government of the State of 

Israel for Cooperation in Child Support Enforcement.”2Simchi makes no 

representations about the contents of the alleged certification of service or its 

origin. Exhibit B2 is attached to an affidavit executed by Sara, in which she states

that the exhibit is “the original certification of service” signed by Shlomo. Sara’s 

affidavit and exhibit B2 were attached to amended pleadings filed by the Attorney 

General shortly after the Israeli attorney who testified on Shlomo’s behalf was 

deposed.

B. Shlomo’s evidence

Conversely, Shlomo argues that he presented sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that he was never properly served. Shlomo argues that that no 

certificate of service was attached to the Israeli court’s file as Rule 495 requires, 

the alleged certificate of service is suspect, and his testimony supports the trial 

court’s determination that he was not served. 

Shlomo testified that after leaving Israel he lived in Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for a few months in 1992 until the beginning of September 1992, when 

he moved to Galveston. Until he received the Attorney General’s notice of the 

 

2

In his brief, Shlomo asserts that Simchi is “the attorney trying to obtain enforcement of 

the Israeli judgment in Texas” and notes that her statement is made over 19 years after the Israeli 

judgment was entered. 
16

registration of the Israeli judgment against him, Shlomo was unaware of the 

proceedings in Israel. Shlomo also testified that he was never served with any 

papers from Israel, and denied ever talking to Sara and telling her that he signed 

any papers for the Israeli proceeding prior to the date of the judgment. Further, 

although Sara came to the United States to visit Amos at one time in 1999 or 2000, 

Shlomo testified that she never told him that she wanted anything from him.

Shlomo further testified that he had never lived or worked at 510 Highway 

17 North in Surfside Beach, the address on the alleged certificate of delivery. 

When shown Google Maps screenshots of that address, Shlomo stated that there 

was a bowling alley and a fast food establishment at that location, and he often ate

lunch there when he was working as a delivery driver in the area. Shlomo testified 

he was never served with any papers at the Surfside Beach address. Further, 

Shlomo specifically testified that, from November 16, 1992 through June 21, 

1993—the time frame between when the Israeli summons was prepared and the 

date of the Israeli court’s judgment—he lived in Galveston. Shlomo also denied 

ever seeing the alleged certificate of delivery before it was filed in this case and 

denied that the signature on the card was his.3

As noted above, Rule 495 requires proof of delivery, and the proof of 

delivery must be attached to the court’s file. The record contains no evidence, 

however, that the alleged certificate was ever made part of the Israeli court’s file. 

Instead, the Attorney General points to the transcript of the Israeli hearing in which 

the advocate “submit[ted] the confirmation” and Sara testified that Shlomo told her 

he received the claim documents and it was his signature on the confirmation. The 

Israeli judge relied on these statements in holding that Shlomo was served but 

 

3 Moreover, although Shlomo acknowledged that a relative of his had held a liquor 

license at one of the businesses at the Surfside Beach location at one time, that relative’s last 

name was Hemo, not Hamo.
17

failed to appear. But no certificate of service is made an exhibit to the hearing, so 

its contents cannot be determined. Further, Shlomo submitted a copy of the 

contents of the Israeli court’s file, obtained by an Israeli family law attorney from 

the Israeli court clerk, and the file contains no certificate of service.

Additionally, the purported certificate of service is untranslated, addressed to 

a “Shlomo Hemo,” and contains an illegible signature. The only verification of the 

document is a third party’s statement that the document is a “true and correct copy 

of a double-sided certification of service” and Sara’s affidavit, which Shlomo’s 

testimony contradicts. Shlomo also testified that the certificate was directed to an 

address where he never lived or worked, was sent at a time when he was not even 

present in the state, and was not signed by him.

4

C. The trial court’s findings of fact

Additionally, the trial court made fifty-three findings of fact that are 

supported by the record and are not specifically challenged by the Attorney 

General. Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on an appellate court unless the 

contrary is established as a matter of law or if no evidence supports the findings. 

McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1986); In re M.L.W., 358

S.W.3d 772, 774 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.). 

Some of the trial court’s findings are based on its resolution of conflicting 

testimony in Shlomo’s favor, but others are based on the Israeli record. Among 

 

4

The Attorney General argues that Shlomo’s complaint that the certificate of delivery is 

not in the court’s file, as Rule 495 requires, misses the mark because, in a collateral attack on a 

foreign judgment, technical defects in service are permissible as long as they do not “rise to the 

level of a due process violation that would render the default judgment void.” See PNS Stores, 

Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 273–74 (Tex. 2012). But PNS is distinguishable because in that 

case the only complaints were technical defects in service—such as the citation’s failure to list 

the time of service, the service agent, and whether the citation had been on file for ten days 

preceding the default judgment. See id. at 273. In this case, Shlomo asserts that he was never 

served and that his due process rights were violated.
18

other things, the trial court found that Shlomo was never served with any process 

or papers for the underlying proceeding in Israel, the Attorney General filed no 

proof of service of process in its initial filing, the Israeli court’s file contains no 

proof of service, delivery confirmation, or proof of delivery; the file contains no 

signature of Shlomo Hamo; and a signature is required of a person being served by 

mail under the law of Israel.

As to exhibit B2, which the trial court refers to as the “Postal Card,” the trial 

court found, among other things, that the Postal Card purports to give notice to a 

Mr. Hemo, not Shlomo Hamo; does not include a confirming mail receipt; does not 

bear any postal stamp or postal seal; has no court stamps or seals indicating that it 

was filed in the Israeli court’s file; has no date of delivery or date of initial mailing; 

is not contained in the Israeli court’s file; and the Attorney General offered no 

certification of the Israeli court clerk that the Postal Card is in fact contained in the 

Israeli court’s file.

Further, the trial court found that Shlomo has lived in Galveston since after 

Labor Day in 1992, and that he lived in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, from the 

beginning of 1992 until the beginning of September 1992; the registration alleged 

that Shlomo was served at 510 Highway 17 North #AA, Surfside Beach, South 

Carolina; Shlomo was familiar with that address, which is a shopping center; 

Shlomo did not reside or work at that address and was not served with process 

there; Shlomo did not submit himself to the jurisdiction of Israel by consent; he did 

not enter a general appearance in Israel; he had no knowledge of any suit in Israel 

while it was pending; and he was not officially notified about the judgment after its 

entry in Israel. 

On this record, the trial court could have resolved the conflicts in the 

evidence to conclude that Shlomo had no notice of Sara’s support claim in the 
19

Israeli court and was never served with process consistent with Israeli law. When 

presented with conflicting evidence, the trial court may believe one witness and 

disbelieve others, and it may resolve inconsistencies in the testimony of any 

witness. McGalliard, 722 S.W.2d at 697. Moreover, once Shlomo presented 

probative evidence that he was not served, any presumption in favor of the 

judgment no longer applied. See Alfonso v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 

2008) (“Because Skadden’s affidavit and testimony affirmatively revealed a 

jurisdictional defect, the court of appeals should not have presumed otherwise.”). 

Thus, recognizing that it is Shlomo’s burden to establish one or more of the 

statutory defenses to registration, we conclude that the evidence amply supports 

the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in 

rendering judgment that Shlomo was never served with process or given notice of 

the underlying proceeding in Israel and was denied due process in that proceeding.

See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.607; In re M.L.W., 358 S.W.3d at 776 (affirming trial 

court’s order to vacate registration of wife’s default divorce obtained in Michigan 

when husband demonstrated that he was not properly served under Michigan law).

We overrule the Attorney General’s third issue.

CONCLUSION

We overrule the Attorney General’s issues and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

/s/ Ken Wise

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise (Frost, C.J., 

concurring).