Legal Definitions - Fauntleroy doctrine

The Fauntleroy doctrine is a legal principle that mandates one state to recognize and enforce a valid court judgment issued by another state. This obligation applies even if the underlying legal claim or action that led to the judgment would be considered illegal or contrary to the public policy of the state where enforcement is sought. The crucial condition is that the court which originally issued the judgment must have had proper legal authority (known as jurisdiction) over the case and the parties involved.

Here are some examples illustrating the Fauntleroy doctrine:

• Example 1: Enforcing a Gambling Debt
  Imagine a scenario where State A permits and regulates casino gambling, allowing individuals to sue to collect gambling debts. State B, however, has strict laws prohibiting gambling and considers gambling debts unenforceable. If a person incurs a significant gambling debt in State A and a court in State A issues a judgment against them for that debt, and then that person moves to State B, the Fauntleroy doctrine would typically require State B's courts to enforce the judgment from State A. This is true even though State B's own laws would not allow a gambling debt to be collected if the case had originated within its borders.
• Example 2: Differing Non-Compete Agreement Laws
  Consider a situation where State C has very lenient laws regarding non-compete agreements, often enforcing them broadly, while State D has very strict laws, frequently deeming such agreements unenforceable as against public policy. If a company in State C sues a former employee for violating a non-compete clause and obtains a judgment against them, and the employee subsequently moves to State D, the Fauntleroy doctrine would generally compel State D's courts to enforce the judgment from State C. This holds even if State D's own courts would have refused to enforce that specific non-compete agreement had the dispute arisen entirely within State D.
• Example 3: Legality of Certain Financial Products
  Suppose State E allows and regulates certain types of high-interest loans or financial products that are deemed predatory and illegal under the consumer protection laws of State F. If a lender obtains a judgment in State E against a borrower who defaulted on such a loan, and the borrower later relocates to State F, the Fauntleroy doctrine would typically require State F's courts to enforce the judgment from State E. This obligation exists despite State F's strong public policy against such financial products, provided the State E court had proper jurisdiction over the original case.