## Facts

- Hannelore Nicol (née Heidecker), a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, obtained a German court **default judgment** on **August 22, 1967** declaring Lawrence E. Tanner the father of her child and ordering Tanner to pay **95 Deutschmarks (about $29.55) per month** in child support.
- At the time of the German proceeding, Tanner was a **United States serviceman stationed in Germany**.
- Tanner **made no payments** under the German judgment.
- Nicol later sued Tanner in **Hennepin County District Court (Minnesota)** seeking: (1) enforcement of the German judgment for **$1,477.50** in alleged arrears, and (2) an order for **$50 per month** in future support.
- Tanner **denied paternity** and argued, among other things, that the German court **lacked jurisdiction** and that the judgment should not be enforced.
- The district court **refused to enforce** the German judgment **solely** because Nicol did not show **reciprocity**—that a German court would enforce a comparable Minnesota support judgment—based on language from *Traders Trust Co. v. Davidson*.

## Issues

1. Is **reciprocity** a prerequisite to enforcement in Minnesota of a judgment from a foreign country?
2. Apart from reciprocity, is there any other reason on this record to deny enforcement of the German paternity and child-support judgment?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that **reciprocity is not a prerequisite** to enforcement of a foreign-country judgment in Minnesota.
- The court explained that the reciprocity language in *Traders Trust Co. v. Davidson* was **dictum**, because *Traders Trust* actually denied enforcement of a Canadian judgment for **lack of personal jurisdiction**, not for lack of reciprocity.
- The court concluded that, beyond the rejected reciprocity ground, the record did not show a valid basis to refuse enforcement under recognized limits on comity.
- The court **reversed** the district court’s judgment and **remanded** for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota may recognize and enforce foreign-country judgments as a matter of **comity**, rather than under constitutional full faith and credit.
- **Reciprocity is not required** for recognition or enforcement of a foreign-country judgment in Minnesota.
- A foreign judgment may be refused enforcement where established defenses apply, such as **lack of jurisdiction**, **fraud**, **procedures inconsistent with basic fairness**, or **strong public policy** reasons.
- A default judgment is not unenforceable merely because it was entered by default; the focus is whether the foreign court had authority and used procedures that meet basic standards of fairness.

## Conclusion

*Nicol v. Tanner* rejects a reciprocity condition for enforcing foreign-country judgments in Minnesota. Because the district court denied enforcement of Nicol’s German paternity and child-support judgment only for lack of reciprocity, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for proceedings under comity principles and any recognized defenses.


Nicol v. Tanner, 256 N.W.2d 796 (1976)