§ 3.9.3 Foreign Judgments

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.9.3 Foreign Judgments. Arizona has enacted the Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act at A.R.S. §§ 12-1701 to -1708 . The statutory scheme sets forth the process to be followed in domesticating a “foreign judgment,” as that phrase is defined in A.R.S. § 12-1701 . An authenticated copy of the foreign judgment, along with an affidavit setting forth the name and last known post office address of the debtor and creditor, is filed with the superior court. No execution or other process for enforcement of the foreign judgment can be used until 20 days after the judgment creditor has mailed a notice of filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor and proof of mailing is filed. A.R.S. § 12-1704(C). Proof of the mailing is filed with the clerk of the court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1703 .

In Jones v. Roach,118 Ariz. 146, 575 P.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1978), the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the Arizona courts could not hear motions, under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c), requesting relief under the foreign judgment. The judgment debtor in that case sought relief on the basis of what amounted to mistake. Citing Jones to affirm the lower court’s denial of a judgment debtor’s Rule 60(c) motion, the Arizona Court of Appeals in Miller v. Eloie Farms, Inc.,128 Ariz. 269, 270, 625 P.2d 332, 333 (Ct. App. 1980), subsequently held that a foreign judgment may only be attacked in Arizona by a Rule 60(c) motion if: (1) The rendering court lacked jurisdiction over the person or subject matter; (2) the judgment was obtained through lack of due process; (3) the judgment was the result of extrinsic fraud; or (4) the judgment was invalid or unenforceable. The court held that a foreign judgment, even though not domesticated in strict compliance with the notice requirements of A.R.S. § 12-1703(B), could not be attacked simply by way of a judgment debtor’s affidavit that a meritorious defense existed. Nothing in the Revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act precludes an Arizona court from applying Arizona’s statute of limitations when determining whether a foreign judgment is entitled to enforcement under the Act. Eschenhagen v. Zika,144 Ariz. 213, 696 P.2d 1362 (Ct. App. 1985) (A judgment creditor filed her Missouri judgment under the Act 9½ years after the judgment had been entered in Missouri. The court applied Arizona’s 5-year statute of limitations for enforcing judgments, not Missouri’s 10-year statute. The judgment was still valid in Missouri, but...