So, here I am, in March, and I’m writing about how a Davidson County Chancery Court has now ruled that a simple “certified copy” of the judgment would suffice. Five months is a pretty quick turnaround, even by my standards.
The reasoning of the Chancellor is this:
- The purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause was to make it easy to enroll and domesticate judgments granted in other jurisdictions;
- As you know, the requirements for filing a foreign judgment in Tennessee are “few and straightforward.” See Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Patterson, No. M1999-02805-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1613892, at * 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2001).
- As I’ve written about before, there are essentially three “defenses” to a filing under the Act. Those are: (1) if the judgment is “void due to a lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction;” (2) if it was “based upon fraud;” or (3) where its enforcement “would violate public policy of the forum state.” Guseinov v. Synergy Ventures, Inc., 467 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).
- Per Guseinov, a party seeking to prevent the enrollment of a foreign judgment carries “a stern and heavy burden” in Tennessee.
- So, if the only defense is that the judgment wasn’t authenticated consistent with the Acts of Congress/triple certification process/exemplified, the creditor hasn’t met a “stern and heavy burden.”
- If there is no indication or argument that the simple certification on the certified judgment is invalid or not the Clerk’s signature, then a certified copy will suffice.
Today isn’t the day that I argue against the ruling; instead, this is just me, warning you.
But, this hasn’t always been the practice in Tennessee or other jurisdictions interpreting the Foreign Judgment domestication Act, so, if you want to be 100% safe, go with the authenticated copy.
Tune back in 4 months to see if I have reversed course again.