Opinion ID: 1738798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Application of UFMJRA and Section 95.11 to This Case

Text: The UFMJRA provides in pertinent parts as follows: 55.601 Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act; short title. Sections 55.601-55.607 may be cited as the Uniform Out of County Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act. 55.602 Definitions.As used in this act, the term: (1) Foreign state means any governmental unit other than the United States, or any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Ryukyu Islands. (2) Foreign judgment means any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine, or other penalty. 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. 55.603 is conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money. Procedures for recognition and enforce-ability of a foreign judgment shall be as follows: (1) The foreign judgment shall be filed with the clerk of the court and recorded in the public records in the county or counties where enforcement is sought. (a) At the time of the recording of a foreign judgment, the judgment creditor shall make and record with the clerk of the circuit court an affidavit setting forth the name, social security number, if known, and last known post-office address of the judgment debtor and of the judgment creditor. (b) Promptly upon the recording of the foreign judgment and the affidavit, the clerk shall mail notice of the recording of the foreign judgment, by registered mail with return receipt requested, to the judgment debtor at the address given in the affidavit and shall make a note of the mailing in the docket. The notice shall include the name and address of the judgment creditor and of the judgment creditor's attorney, if any, in this state. In addition, the judgment creditor may mail a notice of the recording of the judgment to the judgment debtor and may record proof of mailing with the clerk. The failure of the clerk to mail notice of recording will not affect the enforcement proceedings if proof of mailing by the judgment creditor has been recorded. (2) The judgment debtor shall have 30 days after service of the notice to file a notice of objection with the clerk of the court specifying the grounds for nonrecognition or nonenforceability under this act. (3) Upon the application of any party, and after proper notice, the circuit court shall have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing, determine the issues, and enter an appropriate order granting or denying recognition in accordance with the terms of this act. (4) If the judgment debtor fails to file a notice of objection within the required time, the clerk of the court shall record a certificate stating that no objection 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.  (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) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. (2) A foreign judgment need not be recognized if: (a) The 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. (b) The judgment was obtained by fraud. (c) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state. (d) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive order. (e) The 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. (f) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action. (g) The foreign jurisdiction where judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this state. (Emphasis added.) When applying the statute to foreign money judgments, the UFMJRA contemplates a two-step process before the judgment can be collected in this state. First, the judgment must be recognized; then the judgment creditor must institute enforcement proceedings. While the term recognition is not defined in the statute, one definition of the term offered in Black's Law Dictionary, (7th ed.1999) at page 1277, is Confirmation that an act done by another person was authorized. Thus, the first step is simply to determine whether the foreign judgment was authorized. The language of section 55.603 makes it clear that the 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. There has been no argument made by Nadd that this judgment does not meet these criteria. [8] In fact, the arguments that have been pursued in the appellate courts center around 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 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. In this case, the foreign judgment was and is final and conclusive and enforceable in France, and none of the grounds for nonrecognition have been shown to be applicable. Under such circumstances, the judgment is entitled to be recognized. The trial court erred in denying recognition of this French judgment when the statutory prerequisites had been established. Once the recognition hurdle has been overcome, the next step in this process is enforcement. [9] The UFMJRA specifically requires the recognized judgment be enforced in the same manner as the judgment of a court of this state. One of the requirements for enforcement of judgments of this state is that the judgment be enforced with the time constraints of section 95.11. Section 95.11(1) provides that an action to enforce a judgment of a court of record of this state must be commenced within twenty years. Other courts interpreting the UFMJRA have reached similar conclusions. For example, in La Societe Anonyme Goro v. Conveyor Accessories, Inc., 286 Ill.App.3d 867, 222 Ill.Dec. 217, 677 N.E.2d 30 (1997), a case involving an attempt to register the judgment of a foreign country in Illinois, the petitioner received a judgment in its favor from a Parisian court. In 1994 petitioner sought to register the judgment in Illinois, but the respondent objected, contending all civil actions must be commenced within five years after the cause of action accrued. In response, petitioner argued the seven-year statute of limitations for the enforcement of an Illinois judgment should be applied, measured from the time the judgment was entered in France. In 1995 the trial court held the five-year statute barred consideration of petitioner's claim, but on appeal, the trial court was reversed. The appeals court found the foreign judgment as filed was enforceable in the same manner as a domestic judgment and entitled to the seven-year limitations period. In that same vein, the court in Vrozos v. Sarantopoulos, 195 Ill.App.3d 610, 142 Ill. Dec. 352, 552 N.E.2d 1093 (1990), addressed the enforceability of a Canadian judgment in an Illinois trial court. The original default judgment was entered in Canada on December 2, 1974, and revived by the judgment creditor in 1985. The judgment was registered in Illinois in 1986. The judgment debtor objected to the registration of the foreign judgment, arguing that under Illinois' five-year statute of limitations the judgment was not enforceable after 1979, five years from the date the judgment was entered. The court of appeal disagreed and opined that if the revived judgment were a new judgment it would be enforceable within five years from the date of the revival. The court also discussed, without reaching a conclusion because the facts could not be determined from the record, whether the 1974 judgment was still enforceable in Canada because Canada had a twenty-year statute of limitations for the enforcement of judgments. Thus, it seems apparent that the appellate court in Vrozos focused on both the final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered and the enforced in the same manner as the judgment of a court of this state language from the UFMJRA in attempting to resolve the same issues that we have in the case before us. The court in La Societe also noted that the UFMJRA and the state's general statutes were to complement one another. See id. at 870, 222 Ill.Dec. 217, 677 N.E.2d 30. Since Florida's UFMJRA has no explicit limitations period, we must also read the UFMJRA and our general statute of limitations statute in a fashion that further promotes the legislative intent. Using the limitations periods that are generally applicable to the forum state's own judgments best assures reciprocity in the recognition and enforcement of our judgments abroad and gives foreign judgments uniform and fair treatment in Florida courts. Although the few UFMJRA cases in Florida have not directly addressed the statute of limitations questions, [10] one case does explain how foreign judgments should be treated by Florida courts. In Chabert v. Bacquie, 694 So.2d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), a case in which a French judgment creditor sought to enforce a judgment obtained in France against a Florida resident, the Fourth District stated that a foreign judgment, once recognized, should be treated as any other Florida judgment. The court said: The effect of overruling objections and granting recognition of a foreign judgment is that the foreign judgment is thereupon immediately enforceable as though it were a final judgment of a Florida court. See § 55.604(5), (6) and (7), Fla. Stat. (1995). The judgment creditor may have a writ of execution issued on the judgment, and it becomes a lien on real property of the judgment debtor in any county where a certified copy of the judgment is recorded with the land records. It thus becomes identical in effect with a judgment entered by a Florida court. 694 So.2d at 808. We endorse this principle and apply it to the present case. This interpretation gives full effect to the legislative intent to ensure reciprocal favorable treatment of Florida judgments in foreign countries. We do not believe the Legislature wished to subject foreign judgments under the UFMJRA to the enforcement limitations set forth in section 95.11(2)(a), since to do so would severely impede similar recognition of Florida judgments. Therefore, in answer to the first certified question, we hold the only limitation applicable to the recognition of a foreign money judgment is that the judgment be enforceable where rendered; Florida's statute of limitations does not affect the recognition portion of a UFMJRA action. In answer to the second certified question, we hold that the twenty-year period contained in section 95.11(1) should be applied to actions brought to enforce a foreign judgment once it has become domesticated through the registration and recognition phase of the UFMJRA. We therefore approve the decision of the Fifth District holding that Florida's statute of limitations is not applicable to the recognition of a foreign country money judgment but that the twenty-year statute of limitations is applicable to the enforcement of the judgment. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.