Court Opinion

ID: 9588742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:38:04.413107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:51.953444
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion. This appeal involves only the question whether defendant had adequate notice of the hearing in the Florida court. No question of jurisdiction over the defendant arises. He appeared personally in the trial of the action in Florida; in fact, Paul W. Boyles was the plaintiff in the original lawsuit in Florida.
The validity of the notice and resulting judgment in the Florida case is determined by the law of Florida. Dansby v. Insurance Co., 209 N.C. 127, 183 S.E. 521 (1936). North Carolina must give full faith and credit to the judgments of Florida courts pursuant to article IV, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. Thomas v. Frosty Morn Meats, 266 N.C. 523, 146 S.E. 2d 397 (1966). Where the Florida court has litigated and determined the issue of notice in the very case being enforced in North Carolina, we must give full faith and credit to such determination. Underwriters Assur. v. North Carolina Life, 455 U.S. 691, 71 L.Ed. 2d 558 (1982). Here, the Florida court did litigate and determine the issue of the validity of notice. It was not a “mere recital in the judgment” that the Florida court had jurisdiction. Judge Christie, the Florida judge who presided over both Florida proceedings, found that “[the court is] advised that notice was sent to the plaintiff, Paul W. Boyles, advising him of the Motion for *501Money Judgment and the date of said hearing, said notice being provided timely and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida . . . The exhibits supporting the service on Paul Boyles by certified mail were before the Florida court.
North Carolina is bound by the Florida judgment which has expressly determined the issue of notice. True, the present defendant was not present when the issue was determined, but that is irrelevant. It is the court that must have resolved the issue, otherwise a party could thwart the court’s resolution of such issues by merely refusing to attend the court proceedings. Such cannot be the law.
The Florida court is presumed to know the law of Florida. In determining the issue of notice, the Florida case of Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960), provides logic to support Judge Christie’s ruling. Lendsay held that where a registered letter was unclaimed, two inferences arose: (1) the party refused to claim the letter, or (2) he did not live at the address to which the letter was directed. In the Boyles case, all the evidence shows that at the time the letter was mailed, defendant lived at 205 Lenape Drive, Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312, the address on the letter. As stated in defendant’s brief, he did not deny that he lived at this address in March 1971. Two notices of the letter were left at this address. Therefore, the only remaining inference is that Dr. Boyles refused the letter. Under Florida law, this is sufficient notice. See Cherry v. Heffernan, 132 Fla. 386, 182 So. 427 (1938). Therefore, this Court is bound by the determination of the Florida court that the notice to defendant of the hearing on this motion in the cause was lawful under Florida law, and we must give full faith and credit to the judgment entered by that court. Thomas v. Frosty Morn Meats, supra, 266 N.C. 523, 146 S.E. 2d 397 (1966). The majority explicitly refrained from discussing any constitutional due process issues. I vote to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice BRANCH joins in this dissent.