Domesticating a foreign judgment under Michigan’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA); Grounds to decline recognition; MCL 691.1134(3)(h); Burden of proof; MCL 691.1134(4); “International concept of due process”; Proof of the existence of an authenticated foreign judgment; MCL 691.1133(3); Waiver; Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a); The court’s jurisdiction to hear part of the appeal; MCR 7.203(A)(1) & 7.202(6)(a)(i); Enforcement of the interest portion of the foreign judgment

In these consolidated appeals, in defendant’s appeal the court rejected his claim that the trial court erred in domesticating a Serbian judgment, and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a). In plaintiff’s appeal, it concluded the trial court erred in ruling “that he was barred from enforcing the interest portion of the Serbian judgment.” Thus, it affirmed in defendant’s appeal, and in plaintiff’s appeal it reversed the trial court’s preclusion of interest on the Serbian judgment. Defendant argued the trial court erred in “ruling that his failure to be allowed to testify at the Serbian trial was not a ground to decline recognition of the Serbian judgment under MCL 691.1134(3)(h).” The court noted the “burden of proof is on the party seeking to establish that an exception to recognition applies.” He contended “that the Serbian proceeding was not compatible with the requirements of due process,” solely relying on the fact he allegedly was denied the opportunity to testify. But he admitted “he had no evidence of why the Serbian court denied his request to testify.” He asserted “this lack of a reason on the record is adequate to show that he was denied due process.” The court disagreed, noting there “are many acceptable reasons why a court may preclude a party from testifying.” It concluded that his “concession of a lack of evidence for why he was denied the opportunity to testify—when it is conceivable there was a valid reason for the denial—means that he failed to meet” his burden of proof. Further, “as recognized by the trial court, despite not being able to testify in the Serbian proceeding, defendant had notice of [it], had an opportunity to be heard, was represented by a lawyer of his choosing at all times during [it], and his lawyer was able to cross-examine plaintiff.” The court next found that he waived his claim that “plaintiff did not prove the existence of an authenticated foreign judgment[,]” and that in any event, “the trial court did not clearly err by finding that Exhibit 7 at trial was a valid judgment under the UFCMJRA.” The court also found there is no requirement in the UFCMJRA “for a plaintiff to establish an interest calculation or amount in order to domesticate a foreign judgment” and that “the trial court erred to the extent it ruled that plaintiff had an evidentiary burden to establish an interest amount or calculation.”