Minnesota Says a Filed Out-of-State Judgment Gets 'the Same Defenses' as a Minnesota One. The Supreme Court Calls That a Misconception.

A creditor with a Colorado judgment walks into a Minnesota courthouse with a certified copy, an affidavit, and a filing fee. Twenty days later it can levy on a Minnesota bank account. There is no summons, no complaint, no hearing, and nothing for the debtor to answer.

That is the design. The Minnesota Supreme Court described the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act as providing “a speedy and economical method of enforcing a foreign judgment,” one that “relieves creditors and debtors alike from the costs and harassment of additional litigation.” Matson v. Matson, 310 N.W.2d 502, 504–05 (Minn. 1981).

The statute then says something that reads like a lifeline for the debtor. Minn. Stat. § 548.27: a filed foreign judgment “has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a district court or the supreme court of this state.”

Do not rely on that sentence. In Matson v. Matson, 333 N.W.2d 862, 867 (Minn. 1983), the Supreme Court addressed a party who read it the obvious way and said this:

Appellant is under the misconception that the above-emphasized language allows the courts of this state to apply Minn.R.Civ.P. 60.02 to foreign judgments in the same manner it is applied to judgments of the courts of this state.

The grounds for attacking a filed foreign judgment in Minnesota are a closed list, and the merits are not on it. Whether you have any of those grounds was usually decided months or years earlier, in the other state, by whether and how you showed up. This article is about that closed list, the twenty-day window, and the one clock the statute quietly moves backwards. The mechanics of docketing and executing on a judgment once it is in Minnesota are covered separately in entry, docketing, and execution.

What is a “foreign judgment,” and how does it get here?

Two sentences of statute do most of the work.

Minn. Stat. § 548.26 defines the term, and note how wide it is:

“Foreign judgment” means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.

That covers sister-state judgments and federal court judgments. It does not cover judgments of another country — those run on an entirely different statute, discussed at the end of this article.

Minn. Stat. § 548.27 supplies the filing mechanism: “A certified copy of any foreign judgment may be filed in the office of the court administrator of any district court of this state. The court administrator shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of any district court or the supreme court of this state.”

Three practical consequences a creditor should plan around.

One filing, one county. Section 548.27: “Upon the filing of a certified copy of a foreign judgment in the office of the court administrator of district court of a county, it may not be filed in another district court in the state.” You get one county of original filing. Reaching real property in other counties is done afterward by transcript under chapter 548, not by filing the foreign judgment again.

The affidavit and the notice. Under § 548.28, subd. 1, at the time of filing the creditor or the creditor’s lawyer “shall make and file with the court administrator an affidavit setting forth the name and last known post office address of the judgment debtor, and the judgment creditor.” Under subd. 2 the court administrator then mails notice of the filing to the debtor and notes the mailing in the docket. The subdivision also contains a fallback worth knowing: “Failure of the court administrator to mail notice of filing shall not affect the enforcement proceedings if proof of mailing by the judgment creditor has been filed.” A careful creditor mails its own notice and files proof of it, so an administrator’s oversight cannot unwind an execution.

The fee break nobody claims. Section 548.30 sets the fee at “the same fee as provided for filing a civil action in district court, except that if the amount of the judgment is not greater than the jurisdictional limit of the conciliation court, the fee shall be in the amount of the filing fee for an action in conciliation court.” The district court civil filing fee is $310 under § 357.021, subd. 2(1). The conciliation court filing fee is $65 under § 357.022. The general conciliation court jurisdictional limit is $20,000 under § 491A.01, subd. 3a(a)(1) — with a lower $4,000 limit for claims involving a consumer credit transaction. On a small judgment that is a $245 difference on a routine filing.

And the act is not the only road. Minn. Stat. § 548.31: “The right of a judgment creditor to bring an action to enforce a judgment instead of proceeding under sections 548.26 to 548.30 remains unimpaired.” A creditor who would rather have a Minnesota judgment entered after an actual lawsuit may still sue on the foreign judgment. Matson confirmed the point: “The procedure is optional and does not impair the existing remedies available to a judgment creditor.” 310 N.W.2d at 505.

How long does the debtor have before anything can happen?

Twenty days, automatically. Minn. Stat. § 548.28, subd. 3:

No execution or other process for enforcement of a foreign judgment filed hereunder shall issue until 20 days after the date the judgment is filed.

This is not a stay the debtor has to request. It runs from filing, not from the notice, not from receipt, and not from docketing. Nothing in the subdivision extends it for mailing time.

For a debtor, twenty days is the entire realistic window to get a motion on file before a levy or garnishment lands. For a creditor, it is a fixed cost of the summary procedure and a reason to file well before the asset moves.

What defenses actually survive?

A short, closed list. Matson, 333 N.W.2d at 867, states it in one passage, and it is worth reading in full because practitioners routinely argue outside it:

It has been settled by the United States Supreme Court and courts of other states that the power of a state to reopen or vacate a foreign judgment is more limited than under the rules of civil procedure and that a foreign judgment cannot be collaterally attacked on the merits. After a foreign judgment has been duly filed, the grounds for reopening or vacating it are limited to lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the rendering court, fraud in procurement (extrinsic), satisfaction, lack of due process, or other grounds that make a judgment invalid or unenforceable. The nature and amount or other aspects of the merits (i.e., defenses) of a foreign judgment cannot be relitigated in the state in which enforcement is sought.

And at 868, the court closed the door on the argument that most debtors instinctively make — that the other court simply got it wrong:

It is also established that the existence of an error or irregularity in the law or facts of the foreign judgment, in the absence of one of the above grounds for reopening or vacating a foreign judgment, does not constitute grounds on which a court of the enforcing state may reopen and modify the foreign judgment. Assuming the necessary procedures are complied with, a foreign judgment must be enforced to its full extent, including any errors or irregularities contained therein.

Matson enforced that literally. A Minnesota district court had reduced a Wisconsin support judgment from $48,682 to $34,380 because it thought the Wisconsin court had miscalculated the obligation. The Supreme Court reinstated the full $48,682. Id. at 868. The Court of Appeals applied the same rule thirty-two years later in AVR Communications, Ltd. v. American Hearing Systems, Inc., 868 N.W.2d 290, 296 (Minn. App. 2015), refusing to reshape a federal judgment to match what the federal court had said in a memorandum but not put in its order.

Matson also confirms what a debtor cannot escape by pointing at how the judgment was obtained: “The Full Faith and Credit Clause and UEFJA apply even though the judgment was a default judgment.” 333 N.W.2d at 867. Note the difference from a Minnesota default judgment, where the debtor gets a four-factor test built on top of Rule 60.02 — see vacating a default judgment under Rule 60.02. That test does not travel.

The defense that wins — and the day it was won or lost

Jurisdiction. And whether it is available to you now depends on what you did in the rendering state, not on what you can prove today.

The framework comes from Corsica Cheese, Inc. v. Roers Enterprises, Inc., 389 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Minn. App. 1986), which adopted a New York court’s description of a defendant’s three options when sued in another state:

First, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be made before an answer is filed. If the court hearing the motion determines that it has jurisdiction, the defendant is bound by that ruling because the issue of jurisdiction has been litigated. Second, the defendant may interpose an answer raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction, and the matter will be considered at trial. Finally, the defendant may make no appearance at all in the other state and contest jurisdiction when the plaintiff attempts to enforce the judgment in the defendant’s state of residence.

Only the third option preserves a full collateral attack in Minnesota. The Supreme Court said so directly in Matson, 310 N.W.2d at 506: “Because defendant, although served, did not appear in the proceedings resulting in the Wisconsin judgment and did not litigate the jurisdictional issue, he is not bound on that issue by the doctrine of res judicata. … A collateral attack on the Wisconsin judgment on the ground that the Wisconsin Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction is thus available to defendant.”

Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002), is the case where that gamble paid. An Alabama plaintiff obtained a $25,000 default defamation judgment against a Minnesota resident who, on her lawyer’s advice, never appeared in Alabama. She then attacked jurisdiction when the judgment was filed in Ramsey County. The Supreme Court set out the standard at 646 N.W.2d at 531: “This court recognizes the right of a defendant to contest an action brought on the basis of a foreign court’s judgment by demonstrating that the foreign court rendered the judgment in the absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” The test has two parts — “(1) compliance with the foreign state’s law providing jurisdiction, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction under circumstances that do not offend the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution” — and review is de novo. Id. The court held that Alabama had no personal jurisdiction, and vacated both the Alabama judgment as filed in Ramsey County and the Minnesota judgment entered on it. Id. at 537. The due process analysis Griffis adopted is covered in Minnesota’s long-arm statute and the five-factor test.

Now the losing versions.

Litigate jurisdiction and lose, and you are done. United Bank of Skyline, National Ass’n v. Fales, 405 N.W.2d 416, 417 (Minn. 1987), applies Durfee v. Duke: “a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit — even as to questions of jurisdiction — when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions [of jurisdiction] have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.” Fales extended the same reasoning past jurisdiction to a due process complaint about notice of a summary judgment hearing: the Colorado courts had heard it, so Minnesota would credit it. Id. at 418.

Raise jurisdiction and then abandon it, and you may also be done. In Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce, 741 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Minn. App. 2007), Minnesota residents answered an Arizona complaint denying jurisdiction, never obtained a ruling, and never appealed. The court held they waived the defense — and applied Arizona law to decide that, because “[t]he law of the forum determines whether an action constitutes a waiver of personal jurisdiction.” Id. Even though the court acknowledged that “their jurisdictional arguments have considerable merit,” waiver ended it. Id.

Appear at all and the merits are closed anyway. Corsica Cheese, 389 N.W.2d at 754: “The proper procedure for challenging the South Dakota court’s assertion of jurisdiction would have been to appeal in South Dakota.”

That last row is the one debtors overlook. Blume went on to reverse anyway, on fraud, even though the debtors had waived jurisdiction and had not squarely raised fraud below: “A judgment obtained through fraud is not entitled to full faith and credit.” 741 N.W.2d at 926, citing Trautman v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 263 N.W.2d 809, 815 (Minn. 1978). The court drew the line carefully at 927: “Our concern about the Arizona judgment, however, is not that it may have held the Pierces responsible for a debt they did not incur. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, we cannot question the merits of the foreign judgment.” The concern was that the law firm’s own affidavit described a promissory note that the record did not contain. Fraud in procuring the judgment is a ground; being wrong is not.

Getting a stay, and what security it costs

Section 548.29 provides two paths, and they are not the same.

Subdivision 1 is the appeal path, and it is mandatory once the showing is made: if the debtor “shows the district court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall, upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by the state in which it was rendered, stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated.” Note whose security rules apply — the rendering state’s.

Subdivision 2 is the general path:

If the judgment debtor at any time shows the district court any ground upon which enforcement of a judgment of any district court or the court of appeals or supreme court of this state would be stayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is required in this state.

Jensen v. Fhima, 731 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. App. 2007), corrects two things district courts get wrong about subdivision 2. First, no personal affidavit from the debtor is required — the statute says the debtor must “show” a ground, and counsel’s affidavit reciting the filing and renewal history was proper because counsel had knowledge of those facts. Id. at 879. Second, and more useful, security is not a filing requirement: “the language of the statute requires posting security only if the district court grants the motion to stay enforcement of the judgment, not upon filing of the motion.” Id. at 879–80. A debtor who cannot post a bond on day one can still get the motion in front of a judge inside the twenty days.

Do not treat the bond statute as the only route either. Minn. Stat. § 550.36(a) now provides an appeal-linked stay as of right: execution “shall be stayed during the course of all appeals or discretionary appellate reviews of a judgment if, within ten days after the entry thereof, the judgment debtor shall file with the court administrator a bond,” in “the amount of the judgment, or a lesser amount approved by the court in the interests of justice,” subject to a $150,000,000 ceiling on the total appeal bond required of all appellants. But in Matson, 310 N.W.2d at 508, the Supreme Court held that § 550.36 “is merely an additional method by which a stay may be had; the district court retains the discretion to order a stay of entry of judgment, Minn. R. Civ. P. 58.02, or stay its enforcement, Minn. R. Civ. P. 62 upon conditions it deems proper for the security of the adverse party.” A district court that says its hands are tied by the bond statute has made the same error the Supreme Court corrected in Matson.

The clock the statute moves backwards — and the exception

This is the provision that decides whether an old judgment is worth filing at all. Minn. Stat. § 548.27:

The time period provided in section 548.09 for the continuation of the lien on real property, the rate of interest accrual provided in section 549.09, the time period provided in section 550.01 for the enforcement of the judgment, and the requirements of sections 508.63 and 508A.63 apply to foreign judgments filed pursuant to this section. For purposes of sections 548.09, 549.09, 550.01, 508.63, and 508A.63, the date of entry of a foreign judgment is the original date of entry in the foreign jurisdiction.

Minnesota gives a judgment ten years from entry — § 550.01 for enforcement, and § 541.04 for bringing an action on it: “No action shall be maintained upon a judgment or decree of a court of the United States, or of any state or territory thereof, unless begun within ten years after the entry of such judgment.” Filing a foreign judgment here does not restart that. An eight-year-old judgment domesticated in Minnesota arrives with two years of life.

Unless it was renewed where it came from. Jensen v. Fhima answered that question and answered it for the creditor. A 1994 Los Angeles default judgment had been renewed in California in 1999 and again in 2005, growing from $142,815.70 to $352,612.82. The debtor argued that because § 548.27 fixes the date of entry as the 1994 original, Minnesota’s ten years had run. The Court of Appeals disagreed, 731 N.W.2d at 881: “We conclude that a renewed or revived judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. To conclude otherwise would be inconsistent and against the orderly enforcement of judgments.”

So the first question on any out-of-state judgment older than ten years is not whether it is dead in Minnesota. It is whether the rendering state kept it alive. Minnesota’s own renewal mechanism — an action on the judgment under § 541.04, which is a lawsuit and not a form — is covered in the docketing and liens article.

Interest changes hands at the courthouse door

Section 548.27 makes § 549.09 apply to filed foreign judgments, and AVR Communications worked through what that means when the rendering court set its own rate. An Israeli arbitration award carried 4% interest; the federal judgment confirming it carried 4%; the Hennepin County district court applied Minnesota’s statutory postjudgment rate going forward. Affirmed. 868 N.W.2d at 297. The mechanism the court approved: “The district court here applied the foreign interest rate and linkage that accrued before the state docketing to determine the amount then due, and then it applied the statutory interest rate to that total amount in U.S. dollars going forward.” Id. The court noted the statutes “afford no exception for state docketed judgments that arose from foreign judgments that were already assigned an interest rate by the foreign jurisdiction.” Id.

A judgment carrying a low foreign rate can become materially more expensive the day it is docketed in Minnesota — and one carrying a high foreign rate can become cheaper. The current Minnesota rates and their tiers are set out in the docketing and liens article.

A Minnesota judgment you want to take somewhere else

The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act is reciprocal in design, not in operation: Minn. Stat. § 548.32 directs that §§ 548.26 to 548.33 “be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of sections 548.26 to 548.33 among those states which enact it.” What Minnesota can tell you is what your Minnesota judgment is: an exemplified or certified record of a judgment entered under Minn. R. Civ. P. 58.01 and docketed under § 548.09.

What Minnesota law cannot tell you is the filing procedure, notice period, fee, or waiting period in the destination state, or whether that state has enacted the uniform act at all. Those are questions of that state’s law, and they have to be answered from that state’s statutes and by counsel admitted there. Assume nothing carries over — the twenty-day quiet period in § 548.28, subd. 3 is a Minnesota number, not a uniform one.

Judgments from another country are a different statute entirely

Everything above concerns judgments entitled to full faith and credit. A judgment of a court of France, Israel, or Ontario is not. It runs on the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 548.54 to 548.63 (§ 548.54), enacted in 2010, and the differences are structural.

“Foreign country” is defined by exclusion. Section 548.55(1) excludes the United States, any state or territory of the United States, and “any other government with regard to which the decision in this state as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government’s courts is initially subject to determination under the full faith and credit clause.”

It only covers money. Section 548.56(a) applies the act to a judgment “to the extent that the judgment: (1) grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; and (2) under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive, and enforceable.” Subdivision (b) then excludes three categories even when money is involved: “(1) a judgment for taxes; (2) a fine or other penalty; or (3) a judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations.” And under (c), the party seeking recognition carries the burden of showing the act applies.

You file a lawsuit, not a certified copy. This is the biggest practical difference. Section 548.59(a): “If recognition of a foreign-country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action seeking recognition of the foreign-country judgment.” If a case is already pending, subdivision (b) allows it “by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense.” There is no summary filing counter analogous to § 548.27.

Three mandatory grounds for non-recognition, and eight discretionary ones. Section 548.57(a) makes recognition the default. Under (b) a Minnesota court may not recognize the judgment if the rendering system “does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law,” if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction, or if it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under (c) a court need not recognize it where: the defendant did not receive notice in sufficient time to defend; the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case; the judgment or the underlying cause of action is repugnant to Minnesota or United States public policy; the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; the proceeding was contrary to a party agreement to resolve the dispute elsewhere; jurisdiction rested only on personal service and the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum; the circumstances raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court as to that judgment; or the specific proceeding leading to the judgment was not compatible with due process. Under (d), the party resisting recognition bears the burden on any of these.

Personal jurisdiction has statutory safe harbors. Section 548.58(a) lists six bases on which a foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for want of personal jurisdiction — personal service in the foreign country; a voluntary appearance other than to protect seized property or contest jurisdiction; a pre-suit agreement to submit to that court’s jurisdiction on the subject matter; domicile there, or a principal place of business or state of organization there; a business office there out of which the cause of action arose; and operating a motor vehicle or airplane there out of which the cause of action arose. Paragraph (b) makes the list non-exclusive.

Recognition, once granted, converts the judgment. Section 548.60 makes it “conclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit in this state would be conclusive” and “enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this state.”

The deadline is longer, and it is measured twice. Section 548.62: “An action to recognize a foreign-country judgment must be commenced within the earlier of the time during which the foreign-country judgment is effective in the foreign country or 15 years from the date that the foreign-country judgment became effective in the foreign country.”

Section 548.61 gives the court discretion to stay proceedings while an appeal abroad is pending, and § 548.63 preserves the fallback: the act “do[es] not prevent the recognition under principles of comity or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of” it. A foreign injunction, or a foreign tax judgment, is outside the act — but not necessarily outside every theory.

One more statute sits underneath all of this when the money is not dollars. Under the Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act, § 548.46(g), “[o]n a foreign-money claim, the judgment must be docketed in United States dollars, and has the same effect as a lien, as other judgments.” Paragraph (a) of the same section says a judgment on a foreign-money claim “must be stated in an amount of the money of the claim.” AVR Communications held those irreconcilable and applied § 645.26, subds. 2 and 4 — the later clause and the later enactment control — so the judgment gets docketed in dollars. 868 N.W.2d at 293–94. And § 548.48(c): “A judgment or award on a foreign-money claim bears interest at the rate applicable to judgments of this state.”

What to do, in order

If you are the creditor.

1. Confirm the judgment is final and the entry date. Section 548.27 will import that date, not today’s.
2. If it is more than ten years old, find out whether the rendering state renewed it. Jensen makes a properly renewed judgment enforceable here; an unrenewed one may be worth nothing.
3. Pick the county with the assets. You get one filing under § 548.27.
4. File the certified copy plus the § 548.28, subd. 1 affidavit. Mail your own notice and file proof of mailing — § 548.28, subd. 2 makes that the safety net.
5. Check the fee. Judgment at or under the conciliation court limit means $65, not $310, under § 548.30.
6. Calendar day 21. Nothing issues before then under § 548.28, subd. 3.
7. Docket, transcribe to other counties, and only then start looking at garnishment and exemptions.

If you are the debtor.

1. Find the filing date, not the date you got the letter. The twenty days run from filing.
2. Answer one question before anything else: did you appear in the other state, and did you litigate jurisdiction there? That determines whether you have a defense or a losing motion.
3. If an appeal is pending or will be taken where the judgment was entered, § 548.29, subd. 1 makes a stay mandatory on proof of that state’s security.
4. If not, move under § 548.29, subd. 2. You do not need your own affidavit and you do not need to post security to file — Jensen, 731 N.W.2d at 879–80.
5. Look hard at how the judgment was obtained, not at whether it was right. Extrinsic fraud survives waiver; being wrong on the law or the facts is not a ground. Matson, 333 N.W.2d at 867–68; Blume, 741 N.W.2d at 926.
6. Check satisfaction. It is on Matson’s list, and partial payments made in another state are frequently not reflected in the certified copy that was filed here.

Madgett Law, LLC

Madgett Law, LLC handles both ends of interstate and international judgment enforcement in Minnesota — filing and docketing out-of-state judgments, transcribing liens to the counties where the assets are, and, for debtors, testing whether the rendering court ever had jurisdiction, whether the judgment was procured by fraud, whether it has been satisfied, and whether it is still alive under Minnesota’s ten-year rule. To discuss an out-of-state or foreign-country judgment, Send us a message or call 612-470-6529.

Sources: Minn. Stat. § 548.26 (definition of “foreign judgment” — any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court entitled to full faith and credit in this state). § 548.27 (certified copy filed in any district court; administrator treats it as a Minnesota judgment; §§ 548.09, 549.09, 550.01, 508.63, 508A.63 apply; the date of entry is the original date of entry in the foreign jurisdiction; may not be filed in a second district court; same effect and same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying). § 548.28, subd. 1 (judgment creditor’s or lawyer’s affidavit of the debtor’s and creditor’s names and last known post office addresses), subd. 2 (court administrator mails notice and notes it in the docket; failure to mail does not affect enforcement if the creditor’s proof of mailing is filed), subd. 3 (no execution or other process until 20 days after the date the judgment is filed). § 548.29, subd. 1 (mandatory stay on a showing that an appeal is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, upon proof of the security required by the rendering state), subd. 2 (mandatory stay on a showing of any ground on which a Minnesota judgment would be stayed, upon requiring the same security required in this state). § 548.30 (fee equal to the district court civil filing fee, or the conciliation court filing fee if the judgment does not exceed the conciliation court jurisdictional limit). § 548.31 (right to bring an action to enforce the judgment instead remains unimpaired). § 548.32 (uniformity of application and construction). § 548.33 (short title: Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act). § 541.04 (no action on a judgment unless begun within ten years after entry). § 550.01 (enforcement within ten years after entry). § 550.36(a) (stay of execution during appeals on a bond filed within ten days after entry; bond in the amount of the judgment or a lesser amount approved by the court; $150,000,000 ceiling on the total appeal bond), (b) (orders where the debtor may be dissipating assets). § 357.021, subd. 2(1) ($310 civil filing fee). § 357.022 ($65 conciliation court filing fee). § 491A.01, subd. 3a(a) (conciliation court jurisdiction to $20,000; $4,000 for a consumer credit transaction). Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act: § 548.46(a) (judgment on a foreign-money claim stated in the money of the claim), (g) (judgment must be docketed in United States dollars); § 548.48(c) (judgment on a foreign-money claim bears interest at the rate applicable to Minnesota judgments); § 645.26, subds. 2 and 4 (irreconcilable provisions — later in position and later in time prevail). Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act: § 548.54 (short title; §§ 548.54 to 548.63); § 548.55(1) (definition of “foreign country” by exclusion), (2) (“foreign-country judgment”); § 548.56(a) (applies to final, conclusive, enforceable money judgments), (b) (excludes judgments for taxes, fines or other penalties, and divorce, support, maintenance, or other domestic relations judgments), (c) (burden on the party seeking recognition); § 548.57(a) (recognition is the default), (b) (three mandatory grounds for non-recognition: no impartial tribunals or due-process-compatible procedures, no personal jurisdiction, no subject matter jurisdiction), (c) (eight discretionary grounds), (d) (burden on the party resisting recognition); § 548.58(a) (six bases on which personal jurisdiction may not be refused), (b) (list is not exclusive); § 548.59(a) (recognition sought as an original matter must be raised by filing an action), (b) (by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense in a pending action); § 548.60 (effect of recognition); § 548.61 (discretionary stay pending appeal abroad); § 548.62 (action to recognize must be commenced within the earlier of the period the judgment is effective in the foreign country or 15 years); § 548.63 (saving clause for comity). Case law: Matson v. Matson, 310 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1981), at 504–05 (the act provides a speedy and economical method and relieves creditors and debtors of the costs and harassment of additional litigation), at 505 (the procedure is optional and does not impair existing remedies, citing § 548.31), at 506 (defendant who was served but did not appear and did not litigate jurisdiction is not bound by res judicata; collateral attack available), at 508 (§ 550.36 is merely an additional method of obtaining a stay; district court retains discretion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 58.02 and 62). Matson v. Matson, 333 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. 1983), at 867 (purpose of the act; full faith and credit applies to default judgments; the “misconception” that Rule 60.02 applies to foreign judgments as it does to Minnesota judgments; a foreign judgment cannot be collaterally attacked on the merits; grounds limited to lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud in procurement, satisfaction, lack of due process, or other grounds making the judgment invalid or unenforceable), at 868 (error or irregularity in the law or facts is not a ground; judgment must be enforced to its full extent including errors; $48,682 Wisconsin judgment reinstated). Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002), at 531 (right to contest a foreign judgment by showing the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction; two-part test of compliance with the foreign state’s law and federal due process; de novo review), at 537 (Alabama judgment and the Minnesota judgment entered on it vacated). United Bank of Skyline, National Ass’n v. Fales, 405 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1987), at 417 (Durfee v. Duke — full faith and credit even as to jurisdiction where the question was fully and fairly litigated and finally decided), at 418 (Minnesota credits Colorado’s fully and fairly litigated due process ruling; enforcement here would have been stayed pending a Colorado appeal under § 548.29). Corsica Cheese, Inc. v. Roers Enterprises, Inc., 389 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. App. 1986), at 753 (a § 548.27 judgment may be vacated for lack of jurisdiction of the rendering court; the three options available to a defendant sued in another state), at 754 (the proper procedure would have been to appeal in the rendering state). Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce, 741 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. App. 2007), at 925 (jurisdictional defense waived by raising it in an answer and failing to obtain a ruling or appeal; the law of the rendering forum determines waiver), at 926 (a judgment obtained through fraud is not entitled to full faith and credit, citing Trautman v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 263 N.W.2d 809, 815 (Minn. 1978)), at 927 (the court cannot question the merits of the foreign judgment; concern is procurement by misrepresentation). Jensen v. Fhima, 731 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. App. 2007), at 879 (§ 548.29, subd. 2 does not require a personal affidavit from the judgment debtor), at 879–80 (security is required at the time the stay is granted, not upon filing the motion), at 881 (a renewed or revived judgment is entitled to full faith and credit). AVR Communications, Ltd. v. American Hearing Systems, Inc., 868 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. App. 2015), at 293–94 (§ 548.46(a) and (g) are irreconcilable; § 645.26 resolves the conflict in favor of docketing in United States dollars), at 296 (the district court may not refashion a foreign judgment to match what the rendering court intended but did not order), at 297 (Minnesota’s statutory postjudgment interest rate applies going forward; the foreign rate governs accrual only up to state docketing). This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it does not promise or imply any particular outcome.