Skip to main content
Search
Cart 0
0

User account menu

  • Sign In

Main navigation

Sign In
  • About us
    • About ALI Overview
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Governance
      • Governance
      • Officers
      • Council
      • Committees
        • Committees
        • Special Committees
        • Joint Committees
    • Awards
      • Awards
      • Henry J. Friendly Medal
      • John Minor Wisdom Award
      • Distinguished Service Award
      • Reporter's Chairs
      • Early Career Scholars Medal
    • Contact Us
      • Contact Us
      • ALI Staff
      • Employment Opportunites
    • ALI CLE
    • Video Library
  • Publications
    • All Publications
    • Get Email Updates
    • Trial Manual Electronic Publication
    • Style Manual
    • Reprint Permission
    • Publications FAQ
    • Customer Service
  • Projects
    • All Projects
    • Project Life Cycle
    • Style Manual
  • Meetings
    • All Meetings
    • Health and Safety
  • Members
    • Members Overview
    • About Our Members
      • About Our Members
      • In Memoriam
      • Regional Advisory Groups
      • Milestones
      • Newly Elected Members
    • Member Directory
    • Make a Gift
    • Membership FAQ
  • Giving
    • Giving Overview
    • Annual Fund
    • 100 for 100
    • Member Giving Circles
    • Life Member Class Gift
      • Life Member Class Gift
      • 2000 Life Member Class Gift
      • 1999 Life Member Class Gift
    • Sustaining Members
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
    • Law Firm Giving
    • Fundraising Disclosure Statement
    • Contact Us
  • News
    • News
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Podcast
    • Press Releases
    • Video Library
    • Annual Reports
    • ALI In the Courts
    • ALI CLE Programs
Donate
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. The Institute In the Courts: Northern Mariana Islands Court Relies on Foreign Relations 4th
Home The Institute In the Courts: Northern Mariana Islands Court Relies on Foreign Relations 4th
  1. News
In the Courts

The Institute In the Courts: Northern Mariana Islands Court Relies on Foreign Relations 4th

December 05, 2019
Image Foreign Law Restatement4th.jpg

Recently, in Kim v. Park and Globuil Holdings, No. 15-0131-CV (N. Mar. I. Commw. Super. Ct. Sept. 27, 2019), the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands relied on the Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, as required by Commonwealth law, 7 N. Mar. I. Code § 3401, “in the absence of written law or local customary law to the contrary,” in declining to recognize a Korean appellate court’s criminal conviction on the ground that doing so would violate the common-law “penal law rule,” which prohibited courts in the United States from recognizing and enforcing the penal laws of another country.

In Kim, the seller of shares in a hotel sought a declaratory judgment and damages against an individual buyer and a company that later purchased the shares from the buyer based on allegations that the shares never transferred to the buyer because the buyer did not pay the balance of the purchase price. The company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the issues were precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because they had already been litigated. Before this instant action, the seller had attempted to bring a criminal action in the Republic of Korea against the buyer, but the Korean authorities instead brought a criminal action against the seller for making a false report against the buyer. After the Korean trial court found the seller not guilty, the appellate court, “using only the documentary record, overturned the trial court’s not guilty verdict based on [] de novo findings of fact and convicted [the seller] without a new trial”; the seller was subsequently sentenced to six months in prison, which he served, and the judgment became final.

The Superior Court for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands noted that, under Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 481, generally, “a final, conclusive, and enforceable judgment of a court of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, or determining a legal controversy, [was] entitled to recognition by courts in the United States.” The court explained, however, that there were exceptions to that general rule, including under § 483(a), which provided that U.S. courts would not recognize a foreign state’s judgment if “the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that [did] not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with fundamental principles of fairness,” and § 484(h), which provided that U.S. courts were permitted to not recognize a foreign state’s judgment if “the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with fundamental principles of fairness.”

Rejecting the company’s argument that the court could recognize the criminal judgment because the penal law rule only prevented the court from enforcing foreign criminal judgments, the court explained that § 489 “prohibit[ed] courts in the United States from recognizing and enforcing foreign penal judgments” and that the court had to “adhere to § 489’s interpretation of the penal law rule.” The court explained that, “in the absence of written or local law, as [was] the case here, ‘the rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute and, to the extent not so expressed as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Commonwealth,”’ (quoting 7 N. Mar. I. Code § 3401).

Declining to recognize the criminal judgment and denying the company’s motion for summary judgment, the court found “(1) that recognizing the Korean criminal judgment would violate the penal law rule as defined by Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 489; and (2) that the subsequent criminal conviction of [the seller] by a Korean appellate court even after an acquittal by a Korean trial court [did] not comport with the Commonwealth’s heighten[ed] protection against double jeopardy and [was] not compatible with ‘fundamental principles of fairness’ and United States public policy.”

More News

See All

U.S. Supreme Court Cites Restatements of Contracts and Torts

U.S. Supreme Court Cites Trusts 2d

Connecticut Supreme Court Adopts Punitive-Damages Rule Espoused by Restatements

Address

4025 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104

215-243-1600

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
Donate

© Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved.