Cox v. Cox, 170 SW3d 389 (Ky., 2005)
Where Texas lacked minimum contacts with the husband
and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to impose a lien on
property in Kentucky, its judgment regarding the lien was
not entitled to full force and credit and was not a “foreign
judgment” under the UEFJA.
Cox v. Cox, 170 SW3d 389 (Ky., 2005)
Where Texas lacked minimum contacts with the husband
and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to impose a lien on
property in Kentucky, its judgment regarding the lien was
not entitled to full force and credit and was not a “foreign
judgment” under the UEFJA.
Wife sought to enforce a Texas Divorce Decree in Kentucky. The Supreme Court held that Texas lacked minimum contact with the husband, and even though he failed to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction before the Texas court that did constitute a waiver of his right to raise the lack of Texas jurisdiction in the Kentucky court. The Texas judgment was not a ‘foreign judgment” under Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA). The parties married in Texas, but immediately established a marital domicile in Kentucky. Because Texas did not have jurisdiction to impose a lien on property located in Kentucky, its judgment regarding the lien was not a “foreign judgment” under the UEFJA and therefore not entitled to full force and credit.
