Hess v. Patrick, No. 2D13–3355.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: SILBERMAN, Judge.
• Citation: 164 So.3d 19
• Parties: Richard HESS, Meredith Hess, and Lucre, Inc., Appellants, v. John T. PATRICK, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 2D13–3355.
• Decision Date: 01 April 2015

164 So.3d 19

Richard HESS, Meredith Hess, and Lucre, Inc., Appellants
v.
John T. PATRICK, Appellee.

No. 2D13–3355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 1, 2015.
As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing May 20, 2015.

164 So.3d 19

Elisa S. Worthington of Elisa S. Worthington, P.A., Pineland, for Appellants.

Robert L. Donald of Law Office of Robert L. Donald, Fort Myers, for Appellee.

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Richard Hess, Meredith Hess, and Lucre, Inc. (collectively the Hesses), appeal the trial court's order that grants John T. Patrick's motion to quash a writ of execution and quashes the writ with prejudice. The Hesses obtained an Arizona federal judgment awarding them a total of $1,600,000. They registered the judgment in Florida under sections 55.501–.509, Florida Statutes (2012), the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA). The trial court determined that Arizona's five-year statute of limitations applies and that the judgment is unenforceable in Florida. We reverse and remand based on our determination that Florida's twenty-year statute of limitations applies.

A federal district court in Arizona entered a judgment against Patrick in August 2003 and later an amended judgment in December 2003 (the Arizona judgment). The Hesses did not file an independent action in Florida to obtain a Florida judgment

164 So.3d 20

founded on the Arizona judgment. Instead, they registered the Arizona judgment in Lee County, Florida, on April 26, 2006, pursuant to FEFJA. The Hesses took no action to renew the Arizona judgment in Arizona. Thus, based on Arizona's five-year statute of limitations, the judgment became unenforceable in Arizona in 2008. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 12–1551(B) (2012) (“An execution or other process shall not be issued upon a judgment after the expiration of five years from the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by affidavit or process pursuant to section 12–1612 or an action is brought on it within five years from the date of the entry of the judgment or of its renewal.”).

On September 12, 2012, the Hesses obtained a writ of execution in Florida, and Patrick filed a motion to quash the writ of execution. The trial court determined that the Arizona judgment was not enforceable in either Arizona or Florida because Arizona's five-year statute of limitations continued to control after domestication of the Arizona judgment in Florida under FEFJA. The trial court granted Patrick's motion and quashed the writ of execution with prejudice. The Hesses now appeal that order.

FEFJA is Florida's version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA). See In re Goodwin, 325 B.R. 328, 330 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2005). FEFJA provides a procedure so that out-of-state foreign judgments will be given full faith and credit by the courts of Florida. See id.;see also § 55.502(1); Fazzini v. Davis, 98 So.3d 98, 102–03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). It is a simplified process that does not require the creditor to file a lawsuit. Pratt v. Equity Bank, N.A., 124 So.3d 313, 315–16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; Michael v. Valley Trucking Co., 832 So.2d 213, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Registration of a foreign judgment under FEFJA is not the equivalent of a common law action on a judgment, and the two procedures are alternatives that have different consequences. Haigh v. Planning Bd. of Medfield, 940 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; N.Y. State Comm'r of Taxation & Finance v. Friona, 902 So.2d 864, 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; Michael, 832 So.2d at 216–17. FEFJA specifically recognizes that it does not impair a judgment creditor's right to bring an action on a foreign judgment rather than to domesticate it through registration under FEFJA. See § 55.502(2). There is no dispute that the Hesses properly registered the Arizona judgment in Florida in 2006 before the judgment expired in Arizona in 2008. See Michael, 832 So.2d at 217 (recognizing that a foreign “judgment must be recorded prior to the expiration of that judgment under the laws of the forum rendering that judgment”).

A creditor who brings an action on a foreign judgment is subject to a five-year statute of limitations to bring the action. § 95.11(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). Such an action results in a new Florida judgment that begins a new twenty-year statute of limitations for enforcement of the new judgment. See § 95.11(1) ; Haigh, 940 So.2d at 1234. But recording a foreign judgment...