CO Code § 13-62-102 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 62 - Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act|§ 13-62-102. Definitions

 In this article:    “Foreign-country” means a government other than:   The United States;    A state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; or    Any other government with regard to which the decision in this state as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government's courts is initially subject to determination under the full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution.       “Foreign-country judgment” means a judgment of a court of a foreign country.     History. Source: L. 2008: Entire article R&RE, p. 99, § 1, effective August 5.    OFFICIAL COMMENT   Source: This section is derived from Section 1 of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act of 1962.   1. The defined terms “foreign state” and “foreign judgment” in the 1962 Act have been changed to “foreign country” and “foreign-country judgment” in order to make it clear that the Act does not apply to recognition of sister-state judgments. Some courts have noted that the “foreign state” and “foreign judgment” definitions of the 1962 Act have caused confusion as to whether the Act should apply to sister-state judgments because “foreign state” and “foreign judgment” are terms of art generally used in connection with recognition and enforcement of sister-state judgments. Eagle Leasing v. Amandus, 476 N.W.2d 35 (S. Ct. Iowa 1991) (reversing lower court's application of UFMJRA to a sister-state judgment, but noting lower court's confusion was understandable as “foreign judgment” is term of art normally applied to sister-state judgments). Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act § 1 (defining “foreign judgment” as the judgment of a sister state or federal court).  See, e.g., See also,  The 1962 Act defines a “foreign state” as “any governmental unit other than the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Ryuku Islands.” Rather than simply updating the list in the 1962 Act's definition of “foreign state,” the new definition of “foreign country” in this Act combines the “listing” approach of the 1962 Act's “foreign state” definition with a provision that defines “foreign country” in terms of whether the judgments of the particular government's courts are initially subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause standards for determining whether those judgments will be recognized. Under this new definition, a governmental unit is a “foreign country” if it is (1) not the United States or a state, district, commonwealth, territory or insular possession of the United States; and (2) its judgments are not initially subject to Full Faith and Credit Clause standards.   The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, section 1, provides that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” Whether the judgments of a governmental unit are subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause may be determined by judicial interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause or by statute, or by a combination of these two sources. For example, pursuant to the authority granted by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Congress has passed 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, which provides that court records from “any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States” are entitled to full faith and credit under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In , 305 U.S. 165, 170 (1938), the United States Supreme Court held that this statute also requires that full faith and credit be given to judgments of federal courts. States also have made determinations as to whether certain types of judgments are subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Day v. Montana Dept. Of Social & Rehab. Servs., 900 P.2d 296 (Mont. 1995) (tribal court judgment not subject to Full Faith and Credit, and should be treated with same deference shown foreign-country judgments). Under the definition of “foreign country” in this Act, the determination as to whether a governmental unit's judgments are subject to full faith and credit standards should be made by reference to any relevant law, whether statutory or decisional, that is applicable “in this state.”  inter alia Stoll v. Gottlieb E.g.  The definition of “foreign country” in terms of those judgments not subject to Full Faith and Credit standards also has the advantage of more effectively coordinating the Act with the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. That Act, which establishes a registration procedure for the enforcement of sister state and equivalent judgments, defines a “foreign judgment” as “any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.” Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, § 1 (1964). By defining “foreign country” in the Recognition Act in terms of those judgments not subject to full faith and credit standards, this Act makes it clear that the Enforcement Act and the Recognition Act are mutually exclusive - if a foreign money judgment is subject to full faith and credit standards, then the Enforcement Act's registration procedure is available with regard to its enforcement; if the foreign money judgment is not subject to full faith and credit standards, then the foreign money judgment may not be enforced until recognition of it has been obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Recognition Act.   2. The definition of “foreign-country judgment” in this Act differs significantly from the 1962 Act's definition of “foreign judgment.” The 1962 Act's definition served in large part as a scope provision for the Act. The part of the definition defining the scope of the Act has been moved to section 3, which is the scope section.   3. The definition of “foreign-country judgment” in this Act refers to “a judgment” of “a court” of the foreign country. The foreign-country judgment need not take a particular form - any order or decree that meets the requirements of this section and comes within the scope of the Act under Section 3 is subject to the Act. Similarly, any competent government tribunal that issues such a “judgment” comes within the term “court” for purposes of this Act. The judgment, however, must be a judgment of an adjudicative body of the foreign country, and not the result of an alternative dispute mechanism chosen by the parties. Thus, foreign arbitral awards and agreements to arbitrate are not covered by this Act. They are governed instead by federal law, Chapter 2 of the U.S. Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208, implementing the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Chapter 3 of the U.S. Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 301-307, implementing the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration. A judgment of a foreign court confirming or setting aside an arbitral award, however, would be covered by this Act.   4. The definition of “foreign-country judgment” does not limit foreign-country judgments to those rendered in litigation between private parties. Judgments in which a governmental entity is a party also are included, and are subject to this Act if they meet the requirements of this section and are within the scope of the Act under Section 3.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 13-62-102 is similar to § 13-62-102 as it existed prior to the 2008 repeal and reenactment of article 62 of title 13, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.   Definition of “foreign state” requires that the foreign government has entered into a reciprocity agreement with the United States before judgments from its courts will be recognized in Colorado. Milhoux v. Linder, 902 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1995).   Reciprocity requirement in definition of “foreign state” does not necessarily render the act meaningless. Milhoux v. Linder, 902 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1995).