Court Opinion

ID: 9692261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:49:07.908912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.744485
License: Public Domain

EDELMAN, J.
dissenting.
The dissenting opinion issued in this case on August 22, 2002, is withdrawn, and the following dissenting opinion is issued in its place.
The majority opinion essentially holds that a foreign judgment can be denied recognition on the ground that the foreign proceeding was contrary to an agreement to settle the dispute other than by proceedings in the foreign court1 even though that court was never apprised of any such agreement. I disagree with this conclusion for two reasons.
First, I believe it is contrary to the rule that a judgment debtor may not rely on a ground for nonrecognition of a foreign judgment that the party had a right, but failed, to assert in the foreign proceeding.2 Second, and similarly, a party with a right to arbitration has a choice whether to invoke it and may see an advantage in re-*339framing from doing so in a particular case. Where, as here, a party has failed to invoke its claim to arbitration in a foreign proceeding,3 I do not think it can be said that the resulting foreign judgment is contrary to an agreement to settle the dispute by arbitration when that court never had a chance to let the dispute be settled in accordance with the agreement.
If the majority holding is correct, a party with an arguable claim to arbitration would be well advised to refrain from raising it in a foreign lawsuit so as to assure that any adverse foreign judgment would not be recognized in a United States court. Because I do not believe this is supported by law or logic, I would not affirm the trial court’s denial of recognition of the Japanese judgment on the ground that the Japanese proceeding was contrary to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 36.005(b)(5) (Vernon 1997).

. See Dart v. Balaam, 953 S.W.2d 478, 480 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, no writ).

. In this case, whether ChemShare's failure to urge its right to arbitration in the Japanese proceeding would constitute a "waiver” of that right under the Texas case law cited in the majority opinion is academic. The fact remains that whatever opportunity Chem-Share had to assert its arbitration claim in the Japanese court is now gone, and the circumstances set forth in the majority opinion show no other reason for ChemShare’s loss of its arbitration claim than a failure to invoke it (i.e., along with the other defensive matters it asserted subject to its jurisdictional challenge).