Legal Memorandum: MA Bank's Liability for Fraudulent Checks

Issue: Can a bank that specializes in providing services to lawyers be liable for verifying a fraudulent check had passed through a trust account under administrative regulations?

Area of Law: Banking & Finance Law
Keywords: Banking regulations; Deposits; Fraudulent check
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Cited Cases: None
Cited Statutes: 209 Mass. Code Regs. 4.01, 4.02
Date: 04/01/2009

The Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA), codified at 30 MIRC ch. 4, applies to any foreign judgment granting recovery of a sum of money “that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an appeal therefrom is pending, or subject to appeal.”  30 MIRC § 403.  A foreign judgment meeting those requirements is conclusive between the parties to the extent it grants recovery of a sum of money, except as provided in Section 405 of the Act.  Id. § 404.  As explained by the court in Nadd v. Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 804 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2001), when applying Florida’s enactment of the UFMJRA:

[T]he first question in the recognition process is whether or not the foreign judgment is “final and conclusive and enforceable’ in the country where the judgment was rendered. . . . .  Because there is no argument that the judgment does not meet the above-stated criteria, it is entitled to recognition unless one of the grounds for non-recognition enumerated in [the Act] is applicable.


804 So. 2d at 1231 (footnote omitted).  

Section 405 lists a number of exceptions under which a court must deem a foreign judgment not conclusive or may elect not to recognize the foreign judgment:

(1) A foreign judgment is not conclusive if:

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

(b) […]


Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)