Archbold Health Services, Inc. v. Future Tech Business Systems, Inc.

• Citation: 659 So.2d 1204
• Decision Date: 23 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-242,95-242
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1884 ARCHBOLD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. FUTURE TECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1204

659 So.2d 1204

20 Fla. L. Weekly D1884

ARCHBOLD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. FUTURE TECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.

No. 95-242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Aug. 23, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1995.

Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Paul R. Regensdorf and Thomas F. Aubin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Broad & Cassel and Jose I. Rojas, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

Archbold Health Services, Inc. (Archbold), a Georgia corporation, entered into a contract to buy a computer software program from Future Tech Business Systems, Inc. (FT), a Florida corporation. The contract incorporated a support agreement, obligating FT to provide support and maintenance for the program. The contract was signed by FT in Florida and then sent to Georgia where it was signed by Archbold. FT's employees traveled to Georgia several times for the initial training and installation of the system. Thereafter, Archbold claimed that the program did not meet its requirements. Archbold filed a complaint in Georgia seeking rescission of the agreement and charging FT with breach of warranty. The Georgia complaint was served on FT in Florida pursuant to Georgia's long-arm statute.

FT moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; however this motion, while allegedly mailed to the clerk of the Georgia court, was never received or filed. A copy was received by Archbold's Georgia counsel who, in turn, showed it to the trial judge at the default hearing. The Georgia trial judge entered a default judgment in Archbold's favor. The Georgia trial judge denied FT's subsequent motion to set aside default judgment, motion for reconsideration, and motion to open default. Archbold then recorded the Georgia judgment in Florida, and FT filed notice of lis pendens and verified objection to recordation of the foreign judgment. The Florida trial judge sustained FT's objection to recordation, and denied Archbold's motion for rehearing, concluding that the Georgia trial judge did not consider the jurisdictional issues when he denied FT's motion for reconsideration. We reverse.

The enforcement of foreign judgments is not a matter of mere grace. It springs from the full faith and credit clause, Article IV, section 1, United States Constitution and its implementing statute, 28 U.S.C., section 1738, which require every state to give the same effect to judicial proceedings as the rendering state gives them. SCG Travel, Inc. v. Westminster Financial Corp., 583 So.2d 723, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 591 So.2d 185 (Fla.1991) citing Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 84 S.Ct. 242, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963). As SCG Travel, Inc. points out, the purpose of the uniform act as well as the Florida version is to provide a speedy and economical method of enforcing a foreign judgment without the further cost and harassment often incurred when an entirely new and separate action on the foreign judgment is required for enforcement. SCG Travel, Inc., 583 So.2d at 725.

Where a defendant challenges the jurisdiction of a court, and the court overrules the objection and determines that it does have jurisdiction, that decision is res judicata and precludes collateral attack on the judgment, even though the ruling may have been erroneous on the facts or law. Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see 5 Am.Jur.2d Appearance Sec. 4 (1962). An aggrieved defendant must seek reversal in an appellate court of the state involved or, if he is...