Le Credit Lyonnais, SA v. Nadd
Decision Date | 10 September 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-1342, No. 98-1343. |
Citation | 741 So.2d 1165 |
Parties | LE CREDIT LYONNAIS, S.A., Appellant, v. Jean NADD, a/k/a John R. Nadd, etc., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert M. Trien of Harvis & Trien, LLP, New York, and Myles H. Malman of Myles H. Malman, P.A., North Miami, for appellant.
Philip A. Allen, III, P.A., and Richard S. Weinstein of Litow, Cutler, Zabludowski & Allen, Miami, for appellees.
This case presents two questions of first impression in this state. First, does Florida's statute of limitations1 bar the registration in Florida, pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA),2 of two money judgments obtained in France in 1978 and 1979? Second, if Florida's statute of limitations is applicable, which provision applies: subsection (1)3 which requires that an action (or proceeding) on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state be brought within twenty years; or subsection (2)(a) which requires that an action (or proceeding)4 on a judgment of a foreign country or another state be brought within five years? The trial court held the five year statute of limitations applies and denied recordation of the French judgments pursuant to the UFMJRA. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that the twenty-year statute is the applicable bar to recording and enforcing a foreign country's judgment under the UFMJRA. We reverse but we also certify the questions stated above as ones of great public importance, meriting a definitive answer from our Florida Supreme Court.5
This case comes to us on appeal from a final summary judgment. No facts are in dispute. Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. (LCL) obtained two judgments in France against Nadd: one in May of 1978, and one in October of 1979. More than fifteen years later, in October 1995, LCL sought to file and record the two judgments with the clerk of a Florida circuit court, pursuant to section 55.604, Florida's UFMJRA.
The UFMJRA was adopted in Florida in 1994.6 It provides that judgments of foreign countries granting or denying the recovery of a sum of money (other than for taxes, a fine or other penalty) which is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered, can be recognized and enforced in this state by filing an authenticated copy of the judgment with the clerk of the court and recording it in the public records in the county where enforcement is sought. The clerk must give notice to the judgment debtor at the address provided by the judgment creditor, and the debtor has thirty days in which to file objections to recognition of the judgment. If no objections are filed, the clerk records a certificate to that effect.
Upon application by either party, the circuit court shall conduct a hearing and enter an appropriate order granting or denying recognition in accordance with the terms of the UFMJRA. That is an appealable order.7 After the clerk files the certificate or a court enters an order, the judgment "shall be enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a court of this state."8
In this case, Nadd filed objections to the registration and recording of the French judgments and a hearing ensued. Nadd did not attack the recording on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in section 55.605, which deals with due process, personal jurisdiction, lack of notice, subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, contravening Florida's public policy, forum inconveniens, and lack of reciprocity for Florida judgments in France. Rather, he argued that the registration process was barred by Florida's five-year statute of limitations for bringing a suit on a foreign judgment. The UFMJRA contains no express statute of limitations. The only statute of limitations implied is the requirement of section 55.603 that the judgment sought to be recorded must be "enforceable" where rendered. In this case, the parties agree both judgments are viable in France, since France has a thirty-year time span in which to bring suit on its judgments.
Florida courts have recognized that the UFMJRA changes Florida's law concerning recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered in foreign countries.9 The intent of the Act is to provide a speedy and certain framework to obtain recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.10 Prior to the effective date of the UFMJRA, a judgment creditor seeking to enforce a foreign country's judgment in Florida had to file a lawsuit on the foreign judgment, prove its validity and a myriad of reasons why it should be enforced, and, if successful, obtain a Florida judgment based on the foreign judgment.11
It was to remedy this uncertain state of the law that the UFMJRA was drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners and adopted by the various states. The main concern was to obtain recognition by foreign countries of judgments rendered in the United States. Foreign courts balked at giving credence to judgments of courts of the United States because like credence was not given to their judgments. It was difficult to convince civil law countries, in particular, that state courts of this country gave conclusive effect to their judgments, when states required litigants to bring new law suits to enforce them, and enforcement was dependent on case law, which varied greatly.12 The Florida Legislature stated that the main purpose behind adoption of the UFMJRA was not to ease the enforcement of foreign money judgments in Florida but to ensure the recognition and enforcement of Florida's judgments abroad.13
We have found no reported case in Florida or in other states that have adopted the UFMJRA, which involves application of the forum state's statute of limitations where a foreign judgment is sought to be recorded. Some commentators take the position that the UFMJRA codifies the prior law in the states concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and it was not intended to change the common law. Thus, since suits on foreign judgments were traditionally subject to statute of limitations defenses in the forum state, they would continue to serve as a bar to recognition under the UFMJRA.14 Peter Ernster speculated that the general statute of limitations (twenty years for the enforcement of judgments in New Jersey) should apply as a bar to registration, to give effect to the provisions of the Uniform Act that a foreign judgment so recorded under the Act "is enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit." Peter Ernster, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments: A Clear Position for New Jersey, 22 Rutgers L.R. 327, 340 (1967). Some states' versions of the UFMJRA contain provisions that foreign judgments are enforceable in the same manner as the judgment of a sister state which is entitled to full faith and credit. Bank of Montreal v. Kough, 430 F.Supp. 1243 (N.D.Cal.1977), affirmed,612 F.2d 467 (9th Cir.1980). Florida's UFMJRA lacks this provision.
Because of the lack of decisions under the UFMJRA, we turn to a consideration of cases brought under a parallel uniform statute, the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), which was adopted in Florida in 1984 as section 55.501, seq. The UFMJRA is partially based on that Uniform Act and older registration laws reaching back to England's Judgments and Extensions Act of 1868.15 In addition, the Commissioners of Uniform State Laws specifically noted that the method of enforcement for the UFMJRA would be that of the UEFJA of 1948 in a state having adopted that Act.16 The policy of these registration statutes is to treat a registered foreign judgment as equivalent to a domestic judgment.17
The 1964 version of the UEFJA ( ), like the UFMJRA, has no express statute of limitations, other than requiring the judgment be enforceable where rendered. Like the UFMJRA, it is supposed to be a uniform law, uniformly interpreted.18 However, decisions reached by various jurisdictions with regard to application of statutes of limitations have produced a marvel of diversity and non-uniform results.19
Florida's UEFJA, like the UFMJRA, provides a registration procedure with the clerk of the court, by which a judgment holder can record a foreign judgment (defined as a judgment of a United States court or another state court, which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state).20 After notice to the judgment debtor and lack of objection within thirty days, the foreign judgment "shall have the same effect and shall be subject to the same rules of civil procedure, legal and equitable defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying judgments, and it may be enforced, released, or satisfied, as a judgment of a circuit or county court of this state." As noted above, the provisions in the two Uniform Acts roughly parallel one another.
The UEFJA, however, expressly states that a judgment creditor still has the option to bring a common law action to enforce the foreign judgment instead of proceeding under the Uniform Act.21 Although the UFMJRA lacks this provision, the alternative means of enforcing a foreign judgment clearly remains open to a holder of a judgment rendered in a foreign country, since the UFMJRA only encompasses money judgments. Florida's UEFJA also expressly provides in section 55.502(4) that "nothing contained in this act shall be construed to alter, modify, or extend the limitation period applicable for the enforcement of foreign judgments." This is a non-uniform provision added by the Florida Legislature. The UFMJRA lacks that provision.
What the Legislature intended by section 55.502(4) is not clear. The drafters of that provision may have wished to make "clear" that the five-year statute remains as a bar to suits brought under the common law mode of enforcement, having referenced that remedy in a closely preceding provision. Or they may have meant to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Goodwin
...S.A. contains a detailed analysis of the history and cases surrounding the FEFJA at issue in this case. Le Credit Lyonnais v. Nadd, 741 So.2d 1165, 1168-73 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1999).4 The Fifth District Court of Appeal turned to examining FEFJA as the two statutes are very similar and the......
-
Muka v. Horizon Financial Corp.
...judgment that no longer has any effect in the state that originally produced the judgment. We think not. In Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the court confronted a similar issue under a different statute. Credit Lyonnais involved the Florida Uniform Out-......
-
In re Tranter
...other courts have considered the same issue and "produced a marvel of diversity and non-uniform results." Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So.2d 1165, 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (citing, e.g., Durham v. Arkansas Department of Human Services/Child Support Enforcement Unit, 322 Ark. 789, 9......
-
Hess v. Patrick
...statute of limitations in section 95.11(1) applied to Maine judgments recorded under FEFJA); see also Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So.2d 1165, 1169, 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (analyzing FEFJA in a case concerning out-of-country foreign judgments), aff'd, 804 So.2d 1226 (Fla.2001) ; ......
-
The Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act: What time limit applies?
...jurisdictions have utilized in answering this statute of limitation issue is provided by the court Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So. 2d 1165, 1168-1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In Le Credit Lyonnais, the appellate court was presented with the issue of whether a five-year limitation or a......