NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RICHARD HESS, MEREDITH HESS, ) and LUCRE, INC., ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-3355 ) JOHN T. PATRICK, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 1, 2015.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Keith R. Kyle, Judge. Elisa S. Worthington of Elisa S. Worthington, P.A., Pineland, for Appellants.

Robert L. Donald of Law Office of Robert L. Donald, Fort Myers, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge. Richard Hess, Meredith Hess, and Lucre, Inc. (collectively the Hesses), appeal the trial court's order that grants John T. Patrick's mo tion to quash a writ of execution and quashes the writ with prejudice. The Hesses obta ined an Arizona federal judgment awarding them a total of $1,600,000. They registered the judgment in Florida under sections 55.501-.509, Florida Statutes (2012), the Florid a Enforcement of Foreign- 2 - Judgments Act (FEFJA). The tria l court determined that Arizona 's five-year statute of limitations applies and that the judgment is unenforceable in F lorida. We reverse and remand based on our determination that Florida's twenty-year st atute of limitations applies.

A federal district court in A rizona entered a judgment against Patrick in August 2003 and later an amended judgment in December 2003 (the Arizona judgment). The Hesses did not file an independent action in Fl orida to obtain a Florida judgment founded on the Arizona judgment. Instead, they regist ered the Arizona judgment in Lee County, Florida, on April 26, 2006, pursuant to FEFJA. The Hesses took no action to renew the Arizona judgment in Arizona. Thus, based on Arizona's five-year statute of limitations, the judgment became unenforce able in Arizona in 2008. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1551(B) (2012) ("An execution or other process shall not be issued upon a judgment after the expiration of five years fr om the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by affidavit or process pursuant to section 12-1612 or an action is brought on it within five years from the date of t he entry of the judgment or of its renewal."). On September 12, 2012, the Hesses obtained a writ of execution in Florida, and Patrick filed a motion to quash the writ of execut ion. The trial court determined that the Arizona judgment was not enforceable in eit her Arizona or Florida

because Arizona's five -year statute of limitations continued to control after domestication of the Arizona judgment in Florida under FEFJA. The trial court granted Patrick's motion and quashed the writ of execution with prejudi ce. The Hesses now appeal that order.- 3 - FEFJA is Florida's version of the Uniform Enforcement of Forei gn Judgments Act (UEFJA). See In re Goodwin, 325 B.R. 328, 330 (B ankr. M.D. Fla. 2005). FEFJA provides a procedure so that out-of-state foreign judgments will be given full faith and credit by the courts of Florida. See id.; see a lso § 55.502(1); Fazzini v. Davis, 98 So. 3d 98, 102-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). It is a simpli fied process that does not require the creditor to file a lawsuit. Pratt v. Equity Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 313, 315-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Michael v. Valley Trucking Co., 832 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Registration of a foreign judgment under FEFJA is not t he equivalent of a common law action on a judgment, and the two procedures are alt ernatives that have different consequences. Haigh v. Planning Bd. of Medfield, 940 So. 2d 1230, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); N. Y. State Comm'r of Taxation & Finance v. Frio na, 902 So. 2d 864, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Michael, 832 So. 2d at 216-17. FEFJA specifically recognizes that it does not impair a judgment creditor's right to bring an action on a foreign judgment rather than to domesticate it through registration und er FEFJA. See § 55.502(2). There is no dispute that the Hesses properly regist ered the Arizona judgment in Florida in 2006 before the judgment expired in Ariz ona in 2008. See Michael, 832 So. 2d at 217 (recognizing that a foreign "judgmen t must be recorded prior to the expiration of that judgment under the laws of the forum rendering that judgment"). A creditor who brings an acti on on a foreign judgment is subje ct to a fiveyear statute of limitations to bring the action. § 95.11(2)(a) , Fla. Stat. (2012). Such an action results in a new Florida judgment that begins a new twen ty-year statute of limitations for enforcement of the new judgment. See § 95.11(1 ); Haigh, 940 So. 2d at 1234. But recording a foreign judgment and seeking to enforce it under FEFJA is not an- 4 - action on a foreign judgment, and thus the five-year limitation period in section 95.11(2)(a) is inapplicable here. See Haigh, 940 So. 2d at 123 3; Michael, 832 So. 2d at

216. The Hesses contend that the trial court erred in determining t hat Arizona's five-year statute of limitations applies. They assert that the Arizona judgment is subject to Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations, measured from the date the Arizona federal court rendered the judgment in 2003; thus, they argue t hat the Arizona judgment

is still enforceable in Florida. The Hesses look to section 55 .503(1) to support their argument that once a foreign judgment is registered pursuant to FEFJA Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations applies. Section 55.503(1) provides that a foreign judgment properly recorded under FEFJA "shall have the same eff ect and shall be subject to the same rules of civil procedure, legal and equitab le defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying judgments, and it may be enforced, released, or satisfied, as a judgment of a circuit or county co urt of this state." Thus, the Hesses argue that section 55.503(1) provides that a judgment do mesticated under FEFJA shall be enforced as a Florida judgment, and Florida cour ts have so held. See Zitani v. Reed, 992 So. 2d 403, 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing to section 55.503(1) and stating that a "California judgment became enforceable like any judgment entered by a circuit court in Florida"); see also Fazzini, 98 So. 3d at 102; Pratt, 124 So. 3d at 315; Michael, 832 So. 2d at 217. With respect to the statute of limitations question here, FEFJ A does not contain its own statute of limitations, and the Hesses argue th at Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations for an action on a Florida judgment appl ies. See § 95.11(1).- 5 - Patrick contends that a different result is required by a nonun iform provision of FEFJA contained in section 55.502(4). Section 55.502 provides as fol lows:

55.502 Construction of act. – (1) As used in ss. 55.501-55.509, the term “foreign judgment” means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of any other state or of the United States if such judgment, decree or order is entitled to full faith and credit in this st ate. (2) This act shall not be construed to impair the right of a judgment creditor to bring an action to enforce his or her judgment instead of proceeding under this act. (3) This act shall be interpreted and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among states enacting it. (4) Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to alter, modify, or extend the limitation period applicable for the enforcement of foreign judgments. (Emphasis added.) The Hesses contend that subsection (4) simply refers to subsec tion (2) above with respect to an action on a foreign judgment and its f ive-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(2)(a), thus leaving Florida's twen ty-year statute of limitations applicable to a foreign judgment domesticated under FEFJA. Sta te and federal courts in Florida have agreed with this interpretation. See In re Goo dwin, 325 B.R. 328, 333- 34 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005) (determining that the twenty-year st atute of limitations in section 95.11(1) applied to Maine judgments recorded under FEFJ A); see also Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So. 2d 1165, 1169, 1172 (Fla . 5th DCA 1999) (analyzing FEFJA in a case concerning out-of-country foreign ju dgments), aff'd, 804 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2001); N. Y. State Dep't of Taxation v. Patafio, 829 So. 2d 314, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (Sharp, J., concurri ng specially) (stating that w hen registered under- 6 - FEFJA "the foreign judgment becomes a Florida judgment and is t hen subject to the Florida statute of limitations for Florida judgments"). In Nadd, the Fifth District stated that one interpretation of section 55.502(4) is that section 95.11(2)(a), the five-year statute of limitations on an action on a foreign judgment, "remains as a bar to suits brought under th e common law mode of enforcement, having referenced that remedy in a closely precedi ng provision." 741 So. 2d at 1169. The bankruptcy court i n In re Goodwin found this t o be "the more accurate interpretation of the non-uniform FEFJA provision." 325 B.R. a t 333. That interpretation is consistent with the later provision in section 55.503(1) tha t a domesticated foreign judgment is to be treated like a Florida judgment. And, "[t]o hold otherwise places a greater restraint on the enforcement of foreign judgments than is warranted in light of the policy behind adopting the FEFJA and similar Uniform laws." Id. Furthermore, "[p]ermitting strained readings which obviate the clear languag e providing a judgment, once domesticated, shall be treated in the same manner as a Flo rida state court judgment is not necessary or warranted." Id. But section 55.502(4) has also been interpreted "according to its 'plain language' " to refer to the limitation period in the state rend ering the foreign judgment. See In re Tranter, 245 B.R. 419, 422 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2000) (d etermining that a Kentucky judgment registered under FEFJA was subject to Kentuck y's fifteen-year statute of limitations). In dicta, some Florida state courts h ave also suggested this same result. See Haigh, 940 So. 2d at 1234 ("Specifically, reg istration of and proceedings to enforce a foreign judgment are derivative of the original judgment and are therefore subject to the limitations period in the jurisdic tion where the judgment was- 7 - originally rendered."); Friona, 902 So. 2d at 866 (recognizing that a foreign judgment must be recorded before expiration of the judgment under the la ws of the rendering forum but going on to state that "[o]nce domesticated, a foreig n judgment will be effective for a period no longer than the original forum's stat ute of limitations or twenty years, whichever comes first"). Since In re Tranter, however, the Southern District of Florida has stated that a domesticated foreign judgment under FEFJA is subject to Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations, citing the Middle District of Florida's opinion in In re Goodwin, 325 B.R. at 333. See 645 W. 44th St. Assocs. v. Koch, No. 13-61475 -Civ-Scola, 2014 WL 1652035, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2014). And relying on the r easoning in In re Goodwin and Koch, the First District determined that Florida's twenty-y ear statute of limitations applied to a Nevada judgment domesticated in Florida under FEFJ A. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Wiley, 145 So. 3d 946, 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We agree that, as worded, section 55.502(4) applies to Florida 's five-year statute of limitations applicable to actions to enforce a forei gn judgment referenced in subsection (2) of the same section, not the varied statutes of limitation in states around the country. The practical result is that by domesticating the Arizona judgment under FEFJA, Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations applies and begins to run from the date of the Arizona judgment . See Michael, 832 So. 2d at 217. Had the Hesses instead filed a common law action to enforce the Arizona judgme nt, they would have received a Florida judgment with a new twenty-year statute of l imitations running from the date of the new Florida judgment . See id. at 216.- 8 - Thus, we reverse the trial c ourt's order that applies Arizona' s five-year statute of limitations, determines that the Arizona judgment is unenforceable in Florida, and quashes the writ of execution with prejudice. On remand, t he Hesses may proceed

with the writ of execution.

Reversed and remanded.

LaROSE and SLEET, JJ., Concur.