Society of Lloyd's v. Anderson

2004 WL 1243220 (N.D.Tex.)

June 4, 2004

 

United States District Court,

N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

 

THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD'S, Plaintiff, v. Reyburn Upshaw ANDERSON Defendant.

No. 3-03-MC-112-D.June 4, 2004.

 

Andrew M. Edison, Bracewell & Patterson, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Kenneth A. Thomas, Thomas & Gay, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KAPLAN, Magistrate J.

 

*1  This case has been re-referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan for a supplemental recommendation on the issue of post-judgment interest. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:

I. This is a miscellaneous action brought by The Society of Lloyd's ("Lloyd's) for recognition of a 136,913.91 judgment, which equates to $219,472.99 in U.S. dollars, entered against Reyburn Upshaw Anderson ("Anderson") by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, London, England. On April 27, 2004, the magistrate judge recommended that Anderson's motion for nonrecognition of foreign country judgment be denied and that Lloyd's motion for recognition of the judgment be granted. The Society of Lloyd's v. Anderson, 2004 WL 905618 (N.D.Tex. Apr.27, 2004). [FN1] The district judge implicitly adopted this recommendation on May 14, 2004, but re-referred the case to the magistrate judge for a recommendation as to "whether the court should award [post-judgment] interest and, if so, what the amount awarded should be." ORDER OF RE-REFERENCE, 5/14/04. Upon receipt of this order, the magistrate judge invited the parties to brief the applicable law governing the rate of post-judgment interest to be awarded in this case. See ORDER, 5/18/04. Lloyd's filed its brief on June 1, 2004. Anderson has not submitted a brief. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for determination.

 

FN1. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of Anderson's counterclaim against Lloyd's for filing a "false pleading" in violation of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. 12.003(a)(7). Anderson, 2004 WL 905618 at *5.

 

II. The Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act ("Recognition Act"), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. 36.001, et seq., does not address the issue of post-judgment interest. Nor does the judgment entered against Anderson specify a post-judgment interest rate. However, under English law, interest on a judgment accrues at the rate of "8 per cent per annum." See JUDGMENTS ACT OF 1838, ch. 110, 17[1], as amended by Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order, 1993 No. 564 (Mar.1993). Application of the English post-judgment interest rate is consistent with the prevailing view that "[a] foreign judgment ... bears interest according to the law of the place where it was rendered ..." 2 J.H. Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws 420.1 at 1338 (1935). Although recent authority is scant, at least one federal district court has held that English law governs the award of post-judgment interest "because this action involves enforcement of English Judgments and because the Defendants agreed that English Law would govern any disputes that arose between them and Lloyd's ..." The Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett, No. 2-02-CV-204TC, or. at 4 (D.Utah Mar. 18, 2003). The same rationale applies here. [FN2] Indeed, a contrary ruling would only partially enforce the English judgment, thus undermining this court's determination that the judgment is entitled to comity.

 

FN2. As part of his General Undertaking, Anderson agreed to resolve all disputes with Lloyd's in England under English law. (See Lloyd's Mot. for Rec. of Foreign Jmt., Exh. A-1).

 

RECOMMENDATION For these reasons, Lloyd's is entitled to post-judgment interest on the English judgment at the rate of 8% per annum.