Case Name: Glenda NAHAR, individually and Glenda Nahar, as guardian for Catarina Sharisa Nahar, Carlos Sharief Nahar, and Alexander Lucien Nahar, Appellants, v. Oral Mildred Jap-A-Joe NAHAR, Kenneth Iwan Nahar, Franceline Cornelia Nahar, Corrine Adeline Nahar, Robert Armand Nahar, and Herman Bertus Nahar, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-06-07
Citations: 656 So. 2d 225
Docket Number: No. 91-1729
Parties: Glenda NAHAR, individually and Glenda Nahar, as guardian for Catarina Sharisa Nahar, Carlos Sharief Nahar, and Alexander Lucien Nahar, Appellants, v. Oral Mildred Jap-A-Joe NAHAR, Kenneth Iwan Nahar, Franceline Cornelia Nahar, Corrine Adeline Nahar, Robert Armand Nahar, and Herman Bertus Nahar, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL, HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 656
Pages: 225–239

Head Matter:
Glenda NAHAR, individually and Glenda Nahar, as guardian for Catarina Sharisa Nahar, Carlos Sharief Nahar, and Alexander Lucien Nahar, Appellants, v. Oral Mildred Jap-A-Joe NAHAR, Kenneth Iwan Nahar, Franceline Cornelia Nahar, Corrine Adeline Nahar, Robert Armand Nahar, and Herman Bertus Nahar, Appellees.
No. 91-1729.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 7, 1995.
Alfred Aronovitz, Daniels & Talisman, Glen E. Smith, Miami, for appellants.
Cypen & Cypen, Miami Beach, Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin and Joel Eaton, Mark Dienstag, Miami, for appellees.
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg and Edward M. Joffe and Russell E. Carlisle, as amicus curiae for the International Law Section of the Florida Bar.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL, HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
BARKDULL, Judge.
On motion for rehearing en bane granted, we hereby withdraw our previous opinion dated June 15, 1993, and substitute the following.
Appellant, Glenda Nahar, widow of decedent Roebi Nahar, and the couple's minor children, seek review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees, Roe-bi Nahar's six adult children by a previous marriage, which ordered transfer of Roebi's six Florida bank accounts to Aruba, in the Netherlands Antilles, to be disposed of in accordance with Dutch law and which ordered payment of administration fees and costs from one of those Florida accounts.
Roebi and Glenda Nahar were married in March of 1977. Prior to their wedding Roebi and Glenda appeared before a Civil Law Notary in Aruba for the purpose of entering into an antenuptial agreement. That agreement provided that no community property would exist between the parties and that each party would keep whatever he or she contributed to or acquired during the marriage.
On May 15, 1984, Roebi, a Surinami national, died intestate in Miami, Florida, U.S.A. Roebi was survived by his widow, Glenda, their three minor children, and six adult children by a prior marriage. At the time of his death, Roebi, Glenda and the couple's three minor children resided in Miami, in a home owned by Roebi and Glenda. Roebi's six adult children resided in Aruba and other Dutch Territories. At the time of Roebi's death, he held six bank accounts in Miami, Florida, with deposits totalling $657,-761.28 Dollars U.S. On May 24, 1984, nine days after Roebi's death, Glenda effectively closed five of the six Florida accounts by withdrawing the balances, which totaled $514,345.50.
Roebi's adult children petitioned the Aru-ban Court of the First Instance to have Roebi's Aruban properties and the Florida bank accounts, but not the Miami real estate, administered under the law of the Netherlands Antilles. The adult children alleged that Roebi and his family only resided in Miami temporarily and that their actual permanent place of residence was in Aruba. Glenda appeared and argued that Roebi was not a domiciliary of Aruba, that Dutch law did not apply and that the Florida accounts were outside any probate proceedings. The Court of the First Instance ordered Glenda to deposit the money from the Florida accounts with a Notary for safekeeping pending settlement of the estate. Glenda failed to comply with this order.
Roebi's adult children then petitioned for ancillary administration in Florida, seeking to have the money from the Florida accounts transferred to Aruba for distribution pursuant to Dutch law. Glenda appeared and argued that the Florida bank accounts and Miami real estate had passed by operation of Florida law to her and her minor children and thus were outside of any probate proceeding. The Florida court stayed the ancillary proceedings pending decision by the Aruban court on the previously filed petition for administration. The adult children then sought to enjoin Glenda from depleting the money from the Florida bank accounts and from disposing of the Miami real estate. The trial court granted an injunction that required Glenda to deposit the money from the Florida bank accounts into the trial court, and prohibited her from disposing of the Miami real estate.
Meanwhile, in the Aruban action, Glenda was ordered to transfer the money from the Florida accounts to Aruba. From that order Glenda appealed, lost and appealed again to The Court of Cassation of the Netherlands. The Hague ruled that Dutch law, not Florida law, controlled Roebi's estate and that the money from the Florida accounts was presumptively an asset of the estate. The Hague remanded the case to the Aruban court for further proceedings.
Glenda then filed a petition, in the Florida action, seeking to revoke probate and both sides moved for summary judgment. Roebi's adult children argued that Glenda was bound by The Hague's decision and that Dutch forced-heirship law was controlling. Glenda argued that Florida law was controlling and that by operation of Florida law the accounts had passed to her and her minor children outside of any probate proceedings. The trial court found The Hague's decision to be res judicata and entered final summary judgment in favor of Roebi's adult children. Thereafter, the trial court ordered that the money from the six Florida bank accounts, after payment of administrative fees and costs incurred in the Florida proceedings, be delivered to Roebi's estate in Aruba to be disposed of in accordance with Dutch law. In order of summary judgment made no express findings regarding the Miami real estate. From that summary judgment Glenda appeals.
We recognize that the final judgments of, and certain interlocutory orders by, the highest court of a foreign nation are entitled to comity. See and compare Metropolitan Investment Corp. v. Buchler, 575 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Cardenas v. Solis, 570 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So.2d 163 (Fla.1991); Belle Island Inv. Co., Ltd. v. Feingold, 453 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 459 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1984); Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 98 (1988). See also § 732.702, Fla.Stat. (1991). But see Sanchez v. Sanchez De Davila, 547 So.2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1989) (distinguishable due to the antenuptial agreement between deceased and his future wife); § 655.55 Fla.Stat. (1988).
This court, in Cardenas v. Solis, 570 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), stated that:
[I]t is well settled that, as a general rule, only the final judgments of courts of a foreign country are subject to recognition and enforcement in this country, provided certain jurisdictional and due process standards are observed by the foreign court; non-final or interlocutory orders of foreign courts, however, are generally not entitled to such recognition or enforcement. See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 98 comment c (1971).
Cardenas, at 998 (citations omitted) (restatement revised in 1988; comment c moved to comment d).
Nonetheless, the Cardenas court held that a Guatemalan temporary injunction issued in a domestic relations case would be enforced under principles of comity because it was one of the "limited exceptions to the general rule" and because enforcement could be based upon "compelling public policy reasons." Id., at 999. The Cardenas court then enunciated two areas where foreign interlocutory orders should be recognized: (1) creditors rights and (2) spousal and childrens' rights in a domestic relations case. Id., at 999. Accordingly, the Cardenas decision left substantial room under the principles of comity, for a foreign decree that is less than final to be acknowledged or ignored. Implicitly the Cardenas decision established a rule requiring the court to analyze each foreign order on a case by case basis prior to granting comity. It seems however that, rather than trying to analyze each foreign order on the basis of whether it is final and entitled to comity, non-final not subject to an exception and not entitled to comity, or non-final subject to an exception and entitled to comity, the better approach is to follow the Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, approach in it entirety.
Sections 92 & 98 of the Restatement suggest that almost all foreign decrees should be granted comity:
§ 98. RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN NATION JUDGMENTS
A valid judgment rendered in a foreign nation after a fair trial in a contested proceeding will be recognized in the United States so far as the immediate parties and the underlying claim are concerned. Comment:
a. Valid Judgment. The rule of this Section is limited to valid judgments, that is, to judgments which meet the requirements of § 92_
To aid the reader in determining which "judgments" are to be considered "valid" and thus entitled to comity the Restatement states:
§ 92. REQUISITES OF A VALID JUDGMENT
A judgment is valid if
(a) the state in which it is rendered has jurisdiction to act judicially in the case; and
(b) a reasonable method of notification is employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is afforded to persons affected; and
(c) the judgment is rendered by a competent court; and
(d) there is compliance with such requirements of the state of rendition as are necessary for the valid exercise of power by the court.
Comment:
a. Meaning of "judgment." As used in the Restatement of this Subject, "judgment" is a general term which includes not only judgments at law but also the orders, injunctions or decrees of equity courts, and the judgments of probate courts, admiralty courts and other special courts....
Consequently, it appears that any foreign decree should be recognized as a valid judgment, and thus be entitled to comity, where the parties have been given notice and the opportunity to be heard, where the foreign court had original jurisdiction and where the foreign decree does not offend the public policy of the State of Florida. See and compare Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895); Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C.Dist.1981). We find the Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 98 (1988) to be the better approach when determining whether a foreign decree is entitled to comity and recede from Cardenas to the extent that it conflicts with this holding.
The trial court properly granted comity to the Dutch court's order which held that Roebi was a domiciliary of Aruba and that his estate was governed by Dutch law. Administration of an estate is governed by the law of the decedent's domicile, See Biederman v. Cheatham, 161 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 168 So.2d 146 (Fla.1964), and the forum will apply its own rules in determining the person's domicile prior to determining the applicable substantive law. See Restatement (Second), Conflict of Law, § 13; see and compare Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989) (citing restatement for proposition that domicile is determined according to law of the forum); Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 59 S.Ct. 563, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939). The Dutch court had the power to determine Roebi's domicile and upon doing so, to determine the substantive law that would apply to Roebi's estate. We note that it is uncontroverted that the Dutch court had jurisdiction in this matter. Glenda had notice and opportunity to be heard, in fact she contested the issue to the highest court of the land. Where a party has had notice and opportunity to be heard and the foreign court has satisfied Florida's jurisdictional and due process requirements their orders will be entitled to comity. See Cardenas; Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 98 (1988); see also Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739 (1970) (French court's judgment applying French law to New York joint bank account entitled to comity).
The trial court erred in failing to specifically address the Miami real estate in its order of summary judgment. While Roe-bi's personal and intangible property may be governed by the judgment of the Aruba court, the Miami real estate may be subject to a different result. We remand this matter to the trial court to resolve any issues regarding the disposition of the Miami real estate in the first instance.
We find no error in the trial court's order charging the marshaled assets with the cost incurred in marshaling same. See Nahar v. Nahar, 576 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); In re Estate of Katz, 501 So.2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Perez v. Lopez, 454 So.2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court properly ordered the Administrator Ad Litem to pay these expenses from the assets of Roebi's estate.
We hold that the trial court erred in finding the AmeriFirst "Totten Trust" to be under the jurisdiction of the Dutch court. This account was not the subject of dispute in the Dutch action, Glenda was not on notice that Roebi's adult children laid claim to this account, nor was it the subject of any order by the Dutch court which would be entitled to comity. Further, we hold that this account was a true trust account which vested upon Roebi's death and, as the parties properly concede, the money from this account passed to the trust's beneficiaries according to the terms of that trust. See Seymour v. Seymour, 85 So.2d 726 (Fla.1956); First Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 196 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
Accordingly the final summary judgment under review is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ., concur.
. Dutch law, synonymously known as the law of the Netherlands, is the controlling law on the island of Aruba in the Netherlands Antilles.
. An Aruban court official.
. Surinam is a dependency of the Netherlands.
. The six bank accounts at issue in this action break down into three categories; three Coconut Grove Bank accounts which were originally established by Roebi individually and which were later converted to the joint ownership of Roebi and Glenda with joint right of survivorship; two Peninsula Federal Savings and Loan accounts which were established in the name of Roebi or Glenda in trust for their three minor children; and, one AmeriFirst Federal Savings and Loan account which was established as a "Totten Trust" in trust for Glenda and the couple's three minor children with Roebi as trustee.
. Five of the accounts were held by Roebi and Glenda either jointly or as trustees, the sixth bank account was a "Totten Trust" and as Glenda was not a trustee, she was unable to withdraw those funds.
. According to Dutch law, Glenda and all nine children are entitled to share in Roebi's property equally; each would thus receive a one-tenth part share of the estate.
. The Court of Cassation, the highest court of the Netherlands and its possessions, is located in the Hague and is commonly referred to as "The Hague."
. We hold that § 655.55, Florida Statutes (1988), is not applicable to accounts established and closed before the effective date of the statute in 1988, particularly, where the deceased depositor died in 1984. Even if § 655.55, Florida Statutes, was applicable, the depositor, through his successor, was in litigation regarding the ownership of the accounts on the effective date of the statute, and subsection (6) of § 655.55 provides for rejection of the provisions of the statute by the depositor. Litigation between the depositor and/or their agents on the effective date of the statute was certainly written evidence of rejection of same.
. The courts of this state regularly seek guidance from the Restatement. See Continental Mortg. Inv. v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 395 So.2d 507 (Fla.1981) (citing the Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 203 Comment b); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla.1977) (citing the Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 2 Comment a); Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 201 So.2d 743 (Fla.1967) (citing the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 379); Kellogg-Citizens Nat'l Bank of Green Bay, Wis., v. Felton, 145 Fla. 68, 199 So. 50 (1940) (citing the Restatement, Conflict, of Laws § 612).
. Although the validity and enforceability of the Nahar's antenuptial agreement is not at issue, we note with approval the recent decision of the Fourth District, In re Estate of Nicole Santos, 648 So.2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) in which it was determined that lex loci contractus governs the rights and liabilities of the parties to an antenup-tial agreement.
. Although, the Dutch courts, in dicta, did discuss this account in their opinions, this court is only required to grant comity to orders of foreign courts, and we decline the invitation to extend comity to a foreign court's dicta.