## Facts

- A Canadian bank obtained a default money judgment in Alberta against Loren A. Detamore for Canadian damages and costs.
- The bank filed the Canadian judgment and an affidavit of Detamore’s last known address with the Harris County clerk and obtained an abstract of judgment and writ of execution.
- The bank sought a turnover order in a Harris County county civil court to reach Detamore’s stock for execution sale.
- The trial judge signed a turnover order directing a constable to take and sell the stock.
- Detamore filed an original mandamus proceeding in the court of appeals to vacate the turnover order and to nullify any recognition of the Canadian judgment.
- The dispute centered on recognition of a foreign-country money judgment under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 36, and whether Chapter 35 enforcement procedures could cure any defects.

## Issues

1. Whether Chapter 36 requires a plenary suit and plenary hearing before a foreign-country money judgment may be recognized and enforced in Texas.
2. Whether Chapter 36 is unconstitutional as applied when it provides no procedure for notice and an opportunity to be heard on statutory grounds for nonrecognition before enforcement measures issue.
3. Whether Chapter 35 registration/enforcement procedures can supply the required opportunity to contest recognition, despite recognition being a prerequisite to enforcement.

## Decision

- The court conditionally granted mandamus relief.
- The court held Chapter 36 does not, by its text, require a plenary suit and hearing as a prerequisite to recognition.
- The court held Chapter 36 was unconstitutional as applied because it provided no mechanism for notice and an opportunity to be heard on recognition and nonrecognition defenses before enforcement.
- Because recognition was void, the turnover order and related enforcement proceedings were void.
- The court directed the trial judge to vacate the turnover order and to stay further related proceedings; the writ would issue only if the trial court did not comply.

## Legal Principles

- Recognition of a foreign-country money judgment is a prerequisite to enforcement; enforcement procedures cannot substitute for a constitutionally adequate recognition process.
- A statute that lists substantive grounds for nonrecognition and jurisdictional defenses must also provide a procedure by which the judgment debtor can receive notice and meaningfully present those defenses before property is taken to satisfy the judgment.
- Courts will not read procedural requirements into a statute where the legislature provided none; if the absence of procedure produces a due-process violation, the statute may be unconstitutional as applied in the enforcement context.
- Mandamus is available to correct a void enforcement order where the trial court acts without a constitutionally valid basis to recognize and enforce the foreign judgment.

## Conclusion

The court refused to imply a plenary-suit requirement into Chapter 36, but held the statute unconstitutional as applied because Detamore had no assured notice and opportunity to contest recognition before enforcement; it therefore ordered the turnover order vacated and further enforcement stayed via conditional mandamus.


Detamore v. Sullivan, 731 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987)