Opinion ID: 6103576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpretation Of Mexican Law

Text: ¶46 The Hennessys argue that, under Mexican law, Wells Fargo did not possess a money judgment to domesticate against the Hennessys personally. They claim that because the loan agreement and note are governed by Wisconsin law, the Mexican courts could not have permitted Wells Fargo to collect any deficiency remaining after sale of the property. We disagree. ¶47 The circuit court was provided briefing, accepted hundreds of pages of exhibits on Mexican law, and listened for two days of hearings to two qualified experts on Mexican law. Mr. Osuna, the expert Wells Fargo presented, testified in detail that the Mexican judgment included both in rem and in personam relief. According to Mr. Osuna, Wells Fargo could both obtain the property as collateral and use the Mexican judgment to seek any deficiency remaining after the property is sold. Notably, the Mexican judgment on its face states that Wells Fargo is owed the principal amount of US$ 7,500,000.00, as well as interest, fees, expenses, and court costs. Although the judgment states that if payment is not made the Hennessys must deliver to [Wells Fargo] the property, the provision does not explicitly exclude the possibility that Wells Fargo is entitled to a deficiency in its money award after the property is sold. ¶48 The Hennessys argue that only the loan document and note allowed Wells Fargo to collect a deficiency; however, those documents are closely tied with the trust agreement. The contracts repeatedly reference each other. For instance, the trust agreement stated that the Hennessys must comply with all 25 No. 2019AP1206 obligations [they] assumed under the Loan Documents, and, in the case of default, the Hennessys were obligated to immediately pay any and all amounts [they] owe[] under the Loan Documents. Wells Fargo attached the loan agreement, the note, and the trust agreement as attachments to its complaint in Mexico, and the Mexican judgment explicitly references amounts owed under the other contracts. Specifically, Wells Fargo is entitled to interest, fees, and expenses in accordance with what was stipulated in all of the loan documents admitted into court as evidence. To the extent that the Hennessys believe that the Mexican court did not apply its own law correctly or improperly awarded relief under the Mexican judgment, they must address their complaints to Mexican authorities. Hilton, 159 U.S. at 202; 30 Am. Jur. 2d, supra ¶42; 50 C.J.S., supra ¶42, § 1333. We will not sit as a court of review for the judicial systems of other countries. ¶49 While the Hennessys presented an expert with different views on Mexican law, the court cannot conclude that the circuit court's decision to credit Wells Fargo and its expert is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Country Visions Coop., 396 Wis. 2d 470, ¶19. While the Hennessys may have presented competing factual inferences, that alone does not justify reversal of the circuit court's decision. Id. ¶50 Consequently, we affirm the circuit court's interpretation of Mexican law. The circuit court properly determined that the Mexican judgment allowed Wells Fargo to 26 No. 2019AP1206 collect a money judgment from the Hennessys personally and seek any deficiency after foreclosure on the property is complete.