> No, states are required to enforce the judgements of other state's courts unless the judgement is contrary to the public policy of the state in which enforcement is sought. The defendant is not allowed to challenge the jurisdiction of the original court in an enforcement proceeding--they were supposed to do that in the original trial (or in their appeal to the original ruling).

I think you may have overlooked that we are talking about a default judgement. If it were not a default judgement, then yes, the defendant cannot subsequently challenge the jurisdiction of the original court when the plaintiff comes around to his state to enforce the judgement.

If it was a default judgement, however, the defendant can raise a collateral attack on personal jurisdiction (and only on personal jurisdiction), at least in some states, such as California [1], New York [2], Connecticut [3], Florida [4], and Texas [6].

(That Connecticut case is a good illustration of how NOT to raise a collateral attack on personal jurisdiction. Boy, did that defendant blow it).

Massachusetts has a really interesting law on recognition of judgements from other states [5]. They enumerate the conditions under which a foreign judgement will NOT be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction:

A foreign judgment shall not be refused recognition
for lack of personal jurisdiction if (1) the
defendant was served personally in the foreign
state; (2) the defendant voluntarily appeared in the
proceedings, other than for the purpose of
protecting property seized or threatened with
seizure in the proceedings or of contesting the
jurisdiction of the court over him; (3) the
defendant prior to the commencement of the
proceedings had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction
of the foreign court with respect to the subject
matter involved; (4) the defendant was domiciled in
the foreign state when the proceedings were
instituted, or, being a body corporate had its
principal place of business, was incorporated, or
had otherwise acquired corporate status, in the
foreign state; (5) the defendant had a business
office in the foreign state and the proceedings in
the foreign court involved a cause of action arising
out of business done by the defendant through that
office in the foreign state; or (6) the defendant
operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign
state and the proceedings involved a cause of action
arising out of such operation.

Aren't all of these things that would constitute sufficient contacts with the foreign state to grant it personal jurisdiction? If so, what is the purpose of explicitly listing them?

I wonder if the idea is that these are common things that people who want to raise a collateral attack on personal jurisdiction run afoul of, and so by listing them they hope that such defendants will realize they will not be successful and hopefully avoid wasting the time of Massachusetts courts?

The phrase that the Supreme Court seems to like when it talks about Full Faith and Credit and challenging judgements on jurisdiction is "fully and fairly litigated". Once the jurisdiction issues is "fully and fairly" litigated (such as in the original court in the case where the defendant does participate), it cannot be subsequently challenged in a collateral attack. If the defendant does not participate, and so the jurisdiction issue is not dealt with, then a collateral attack is possible without violating Full Faith and Credit.

[1] http://www.guerrinilaw.com/Practice-Areas/Domestication-of-J...

[2] http://www.starrandstarr.com/lawyer-attorney-1441037.html

[3] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1598172.html

[4] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ... (55.509)

[5] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/C...

[6] https://jrjoneslaw.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/enforcement-of-f...