Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Desjardins to this issue and allowing application of the Act to this case. This leads us to Chabert's grounds for refusing to recognize the French judgment. The first ground is that the French court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. This ground is based on section 55.605(1)(b) of the Act, which provides that "[a] foreign judgment is not conclusive if ......

...cquié's French appellate attorney to Chabert to have an attorney enter an appearance in the French appeal be served with all the formality of service of initial process at the commencement of a lawsuit. Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it. This contrasts with subsection (2) of section 55.605 which is phrased in permissive terms. *812 Hence, if Chabert is correct that the French court lacked personal jurisdiction over him under the Hague Service Convention, then under section 55.605(1)(b) we may not accord recognition to the French judgment in this case....

...that Chabert was personally served with initial process at the commencement of the action in the French trial court. As we read these statutory provisions, the trial court could not refuse recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction under sections 55.605 and 55.606 if the personal service effected at the beginning of the legal action in the French trial court satisfied all requirements of personal service....

...r service of initial process outside of the French jurisdiction—has not been established by Chabert. Accordingly, the trial judge below correctly concluded that Chabert had failed to establish grounds for nonrecognition of the French judgment under section 55.605(1)(b)....

...Even if we were to agree that initially they represented the kind of categorical holding that Chabert argues they do, we would still have to reëxamine them in light of the new statute codifying the principles for recognition of foreign money judgments. We therefore turn first to the text of section 55.605(2)(g), which states that: "A foreign judgment need not be recognized if ... the foreign jurisdiction where judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this state." This is obviously merely a permissive ground for nonrecognition. Unlike the grounds in subsection (1)(b) of section 55.605, this is not a mandatory basis for refusing to recognize a foreign judgment....

...France's current policy of nonrecognition is limited to non-French judgments against its own citizens. There is evidence in the record that Chabert is a French citizen. [12] And so the kind of judgment sought to be recognized in this case was a French judgment against a French national. Section 55.605(2)(g) insists that the requirement of reciprocity be based on a "similar judgment rendered in this state." The "similar judgment," or reciprocal, of the French judgment in this case would be a Florida judgment against an American citizen sought to be enforced in a French court....

...We need only briefly address Chabert's remaining contentions. His failure to receive actual notice of the pendency of the French appeal is but a factual matter for the trial court to weigh and consider in permissively deciding whether to recognize the judgment. See § 55.605(2)(a), Fla.Stat....

...of his current residence address. As there is competent evidence in the record supporting that finding, we see no error on that ground. We also affirm the trial court's rejection of the contention that the French judgment was obtained by fraud. See § 55.605(2)(b), Fla....

...has failed to adduce anything to support this argument except his own assertion. Finally we reject the contention that we should refuse recognition because the judgment of the French court of appeal was a default judgment. There are no grounds under section 55.605 of the Act requiring a Florida court to refuse recognition merely because the foreign judgment arose from a default by the defendant....

...[10] Accordingly, we have no occasion to consider whether Article 15 of the Convention was satisfied. [11] For this reason, we reject Chabert's contention that the French judgment was entered under procedures incompatible with due process of law. See § 55.605(1)(a) Fla.Stat....

...55.603 Applicability.—This act applies to any foreign judgment that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered, even though an appeal therefrom is pending or is subject to appeal. 55.604 Recognition and enforcement. —Except as provided in s. 55.605, a foreign judgment meeting the requirements of s....

...on has been filed. (5) Upon entry of an order recognizing the foreign judgment, or upon recording of the clerk's certificate set forth above, the foreign judgment shall be enforced in the same manner as the judgment of a court of this state. . . . . 55.605 Grounds for nonrecognition....

...the applicability of the Florida statute of limitations to this action. 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 nonrecognition enumerated in section 55.605 is applicable. The grounds for nonrecognition are based in general terms on jurisdictional *1232 principles, notions of due process (notice and an opportunity to be heard), as well as principles of reciprocity. None of these principles are implicated here. See § 55.605. Important for its absence from section 55.605 is any provision that the forum state's statute of limitations can be the basis for nonrecognition....

...e has determined that enforcement would be unjust or inequitable to domestic defendants. The Florida Recognition Act specifically provides three mandatory and eight discretionary circumstances where a foreign judgment is not entitled to recognition: 55.605 Grounds for nonrecognition.— (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....

...mines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the United States Constitution and the State Constitution. FLA. STAT. § 55.605....

...for non-recognition. B. THE NICARAGUAN TRIAL COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER DOLE AND DOW The Florida Recognition Act requires that the rendering court possess both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(b)-(c)....

...t on the defendants' right to choose to litigate in the jurisdiction most convenient to them. In other words, either DBCP defendants have a right to opt out of Nicaragua's jurisdiction, which requires that the Court deny recognition under FLA. STAT. 55.605 § (1)(b)-(c), or they are subject to a legal regime that does not provide due process, which requires denying recognition under FLA. STAT. 55.605 § (1)(a)....

...Ultimately, it does not matter whether the impact of Article 7 is stated in terms of subject matter or personal jurisdiction because either interpretation results in a mandatory ground for non-recognition under the Florida Recognition Act. FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(b)-(c)....

...This act divested the Nicaraguan trial court of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Florida Recognition Act does not permit the Court to enforce this judgment because the foreign court lacked subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction over Defendants. See FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(b)-(c)....

...SPECIAL LAW 364'S COMPATIBILITY WITH THE "INTERNATIONAL CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS" A foreign judgment cannot be recognized in Florida if it was "rendered under *1327 a system which does not provide . . . procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law." FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(a)....

...iff. Rather, the Court has evaluated the medical testimony only to the extent that it is necessary to determine whether the procedures under which the underlying case was tried are "compatible with the requirements of due process of law." FLA. STAT. § 55.605....

...scriminatory laws and procedures mandated by Special Law 364, and the Court cannot enforce the judgment because it was rendered under a legal system that did not provide "procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law." FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(a). D. PUBLIC POLICY The Florida Recognition Act provides that the enforcing court need not recognize a judgment if it is based on a cause of action or claim of relief that is repugnant to Florida public policy. FLA. STAT. § 55.605(2)(c)....

...ty of individuals' rights to a fair judicial process. As such, the Court declines to recognize this judgment because the "cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state." FLA. STAT. § 55.605(2)(c). E. IMPARTIAL TRIBUNALS Finally, the Court reaches the issue of whether Nicaragua has impartial tribunals, as required for recognition by FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(a)....

...uption in Nicaragua is widespread, the Court is compelled to find that the judgment in this case cannot be recognized under the Florida Recognition Act because it "was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals[.]" FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(a)....

...or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law," and the rendering court did not have jurisdiction over Defendants, the judgment is not considered conclusive, and cannot be enforced under the Florida Recognition Act. FLA. STAT. § 55.605(1)(a)-(c). Additionally, the judgment will not be enforced because "the cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state." FLA. STAT. § 55.605(2)(c)....

...For the sake of completeness, however, the Court will next consider whether the Dominican sentence would be entitled to recognition, if it were a final judgment under the Uniform Act. 2. Dominican Proceeding was Contrary to Parties' Agreement The Uniform Act provides, in relevant part, " [e]xcept as provided in s. 55.605, a foreign judgment meeting the requirements of s. 55.603 is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money." § 55.604, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Pursuant to section 55.605, a foreign judgment need not be recognized under the Uniform Act if, among other reasons, "[t]he proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court." § 55.605(2)(e), Fla....

...aived. Pursuant to the Uniform Act, therefore, the "judgment" issued by the Dominican court need not be recognized by this Court. In light of the strong federal policy in favor of enforcing agreements to arbitrate disputes, this Court refuses, under § 55.605(2)(e) of the Florida Statutes, to recognize, enforce, or give res judicata effect to the Dominican "judgment." The Dominican "judgment" was contrary to the agreement between the parties as to the where the dispute was to be resolved....

...r as the judgment of a court of this state." [8] In this case, Nadd filed objections to the registration and recording of the French judgments and a hearing ensued. Nadd did not attack the recording on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in section 55.605, which deals with due process, personal jurisdiction, lack of notice, subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, contravening Florida's public policy, forum inconveniens, and lack of reciprocity for Florida judgments in France....

...§ 55.603, “is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money,” id. § 55.604. The Act, however, provides three mandatory and eight discretionary grounds on which a foreign judgment is not entitled to recognition. See id. § 55.605 (presenting the various grounds for nonrecognition under the Act). The district court, in Osorio v....

...fs’ complaint. First, the district court ruled that it could not enforce the Nicaraguan judgment under Florida law because the Nicaraguan court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See Fla. Stat. § 55.605(1)(b)–(c) (“(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if: (b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant [or] (c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.”)....

...Second, the district court concluded that the foreign judgment could not be recognized in Florida because the judgment was “rendered under a system which does not provide . . . procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” Id. § 55.605(1)(a). Third, the district court found that the Nicaraguan judgment could not be recognized under Florida law because doing so would be repugnant 3 to Florida public policy. See id. § 55.605(2)(c) (“(2) An out-of-country foreign judgment need not be recognized if: (c) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.”). Finally, the district court ruled the Nicaraguan judgment unenforceable because it “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals.” Id. § 55.605(1)(a)....

...y comported with all requirements of the Act. Counsel for Kruger was not able to cite to any provision in the Act that prohibits enforcement of the judgment. Based upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that none of the grounds listed in section 55.605, Florida Statutes, are present in this case to justify nonrecognition of the Cayman Islands judgment....

...k of personal jurisdiction. This is a mandatory ground for non-recognition under the Act; as such, the enforcing court must find that the foreign judgment should not be recognized if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. § 55.605(1)(b), Fla....

...l not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction," the Act does not specify which country's law is to be applied when considering whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper in response to an objection to recognition. See §§ 55.605-.606, Fla....

...Sections 55.603 and 55.604 of the Act expressly provide that an out-of-country foreign money-judgment that is "final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered" is also "conclusive between the parties" and enforceable in this state "[e]xcept as provided in s. 55.605" of the Act. § 55.603, Fla. Stat. (2008); § 55.604, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added); see also § 55.604(2), Fla. Stat. (2008) (authorizing objections "specifying the grounds for nonrecognition or nonenforceability under this act ") (emphasis added). Section 55.605 provides only ten grounds on which recognition of an out-of-country foreign money-judgment may be denied....

...t entering the judgment either: (1) operates as part of a system that does not provide impartial tribunals which accord due process; (2) did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. § 55.605(1)(a)-(c), Fla....

...The remaining seven grounds are discretionary and, as pertinent here, provide that a foreign judgment "need not be recognized if . . . [t]he defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend." § 55.605(2)(a), Fla....

...On the particular facts and circumstances of this case, this claim must fail. As an initial matter, we note that an attack on the manner of service of process is not expressly set forth as one of the ten grounds for nonrecognition or nonenforceability that may be asserted under the Act. § 55.605, Fla. Stat. (2008). Rather, section 55.605(2)(a)—the only provision of the Act potentially authorizing an attack on a foreign money-judgment relating to insufficiency of service of process—focuses not on how the defendant received notice of the foreign lawsuit, but on whether the defendant received "notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend." § 55.605(2)(a), Fla....

...ng issues that were conclusively settled by courts of foreign countries, unless such issues create an exception to recognition."). Even if the manner of service of process is a defense to recognition and enforcement of a foreign money-judgment under section 55.605, we nonetheless would reverse the order on appeal because Flick waived the defense through its actions in the Israeli proceedings....

... The French judgment meets the criteria for recognition under section 55.604 of the Act. Contrary to Vuillermin’s argument, the foreign judgment does not fall within any of the limited and enumerated grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 of the Act....

enumerated grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 of the Act. Vuillermin may not avoid the foreign

...§ 55.603, “is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money,” id. § 55.604. The Act, however, provides three mandatory and eight discretionary grounds on which a foreign judgment is not entitled to recognition. See id. § 55.605 (presenting the various grounds for nonrecognition under the Act). The district court, in Osorio v....

...fs’ complaint. First, the district court ruled that it could not enforce the Nicaraguan judgment under Florida law because the Nicaraguan court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See Fla. Stat. § 55.605(1)(b)–(c) (“(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if: (b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant [or] (c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.”)....

...Second, the district court concluded that the foreign judgment could not be recognized in Florida because the judgment was “rendered under a system which does not provide . . . procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” Id. § 55.605(1)(a). Third, the district court found that the Nicaraguan judgment could not be recognized under Florida law because doing so would be repugnant 3 to Florida public policy. See id. § 55.605(2)(c) (“(2) An out-of-country foreign judgment need not be recognized if: (c) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.”). Finally, the district court ruled the Nicaraguan judgment unenforceable because it “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals.” Id. § 55.605(1)(a)....

...of a petition for dissolution of marriage. The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.”); § 55.605(2)(j), Fla....