2013 Maryland Code
COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
§ 10-704 - Grounds for nonrecognition

§10-704.

(a) A foreign judgment is not conclusive if:

(1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;

(2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant;

(3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter; or

(4) The judgment was obtained by fraud.

(b) A foreign judgment need not be recognized if:

(1) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend;

(2) The cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of the State;

(3) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;

(4) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute was to be settled out of court; or

(5) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.

(c) (1) In this subsection, “defamation” includes invasion of privacy by false facts.

(2) A foreign judgment against any person who is a resident of this State or who has assets in this State may not be recognized if:

(i) The cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless the court before which the matter is brought in this State first determines that the defamation law as applied in the foreign jurisdiction provides for at least as much protection for freedom of speech and the press as is provided by both the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution; or

(ii) The cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment entered against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 230, unless the court before which the matter is brought in this State determines that the judgment is consistent with 47 U.S.C. § 230.