Opinion ID: 1738798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Florida's Statute of Limitations

Text: Section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in pertinent part: Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: (1) WITHIN TWENTY YEARSAn action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state. (2) WITHIN FIVE YEARS. (a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state or any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country. In this case, the parties and the courts below have provided different interpretations of these provisions. LCL contends that neither statutory period should bar filing a foreign judgment and that the twenty-year period for enforcement actions should apply once the judgment is recorded and recognized in Florida pursuant to section 55.604(5). The Fifth District agreed with LCL, finding there is no limitations period applicable to registration of a foreign judgment as long as the judgment sought to be enforced is enforceable in the originating jurisdiction. The Fifth District further determined that once a foreign judgment is registered the twenty-year statute of limitations for enforcement of domestic judgments provided for in section 95.11(1) is applicable. On the other hand, Nadd asserts section 95.11(2)(a) should apply to registration of foreign judgments measured from the time the judgments were rendered in the originating jurisdiction; the trial court agreed with this argument and barred registration. Because this case is one of first impression in Florida, the Fifth District arrived at its decision by examining the application of the UFMJRA in other jurisdictions. In so doing, the court discovered that few statute of limitations questions had arisen under the UFMJRA, but that several had arisen under a similar uniform law, the UEFJA. [7] While this examination gives us an understanding of the scope of each of these uniform acts and an appreciation of the purposes for each, we find that the language of the UFMJRA and section 95.11, when read in pari materia, demonstrates the correctness of the district court's decision.