The case arose from a $12 million judgment that Irish aircraft leasing company Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. won against Indian airline SpiceJet Ltd. in English court over unpaid lease payments on two Boeing 737-800 aircraft. SpiceJet had fallen behind on roughly $230,000 monthly payments, likely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and the grounding of 737 MAX planes following fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019.
The court concluded that Washington's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, while not explicitly requiring jurisdiction, cannot override constitutional due process protections. 'A court may enter judgment over a defendant only if it has jurisdiction to do so,' González wrote, distinguishing foreign judgment recognition from the more ministerial process of enforcing sister-state judgments under the full faith and credit clause.
The justices delivered sharp criticism of Alterna's jurisdictional theories. 'It is antithetical to our system of justice to be able to file a suit for recognition of a judgment when the purported judgment debtor has no ties to the state in which recognition is sought, either through assets to attach or seize by enforcement or personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor,' the court wrote, quoting a Texas appellate decision.
The dispute reached Washington courts after Alterna sued SpiceJet in England under forum selection clauses in their lease agreements. When SpiceJet made only a limited appearance and declined to offer evidence at summary judgment, the English court entered the $12 million judgment. Alterna then filed for recognition in King County Superior Court, claiming SpiceJet had 'cognizable interests in personal property located in King County' but failing to identify specific assets.
The court rejected Alterna's argument that recognition actions are purely ministerial, like enforcing sister-state judgments. González emphasized that unlike clerk-filed sister-state judgments, foreign judgment recognition requires judicial discretion under the statute's mandatory and discretionary grounds for denial. 'A judge's decision on a CR 12(b)(2) motion also requires discretion and judgment,' the court noted, distinguishing the process from administrative filing.
Justice Barbara Madsen, serving as justice pro tempore, issued a lengthy dissent arguing the majority 'misreads the Uniform Act and undermines what the statute was designed to accomplish: achieving parity with the full faith and credit clause.' Madsen wrote that the statute creates a 'procedural gateway through which foreign-country judgments, once determined under the Uniform Act to be recognizable, should receive the same interstate enforceability as sister-state judgments,' and criticized the majority for restricting creditor remedies 'in today's global economy of multinational corporations and digital commerce.'
The ruling creates a split with courts in New York and Texas that have allowed recognition without property requirements, reasoning that recognition and enforcement are separate proceedings. The decision remands the case for an evidentiary hearing on whether SpiceJet actually has attachable assets in Washington, with Alterna preserving arguments about Boeing-related contracts and 737 MAX settlement claims as potential sources of in-state property rights.