Joannou v. Corsini

Citation543 So.2d 308,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1092
Decision Date03 May 1989
Docket NumberNos. 87-3136,88-0334,s. 87-3136
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1092 George C. JOANNOU, Appellant, v. Frank A. CORSINI, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

John Beranek of Klein, Beranek & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Scott Jay Feder of Floyd, Pearson, Richman, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

WARNER, Judge.

This non-final appeal questions the jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of appellant in a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment domesticated pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984).

In April, 1987 appellee filed a California judgment in Florida pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984). Notice was sent to appellant pursuant to the statute, and appellant does not challenge the domestication of the judgment pursuant to that statute in these proceedings. In aid of execution on the domesticated judgment, appellee set depositions and served subpoenas on the record custodians of two Florida banks. In July of 1987, appellant made an appearance in the proceedings by filing two motions for protective orders to prevent the taking of the depositions of bank officials. He claimed that as a party he was entitled to notice of the taking of depositions pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(b) which he did not receive and he also argued that the notice demanded production of records regarding dealings of his wife who was not a party to the judgment. Nowhere in the motion did the appellant challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person.

Subsequently, appellee served voluminous interrogatories on appellant in aid of execution. Receiving no timely response, appellee filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories, and the trial court entered an agreed order compelling responses within ten days. Thereafter, in objections to interrogatories, appellant raised for the first time his contention that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his person and further that the interrogatories were irrelevant, immaterial and that they exceed the number allowed under the rules. In response, appellee moved to hold appellant and his attorney in contempt of court, which motion was withdrawn at hearing. Instead the trial court ordered the appellant to file the answers within ten days.

Appellant appealed the order compelling answers to this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) on the ground that the order granting the motion to compel necessarily overruled his objection to jurisdiction and thus determined that the court had jurisdiction over his person. Appellant filed a motion for stay of the trial court's order which was denied. Review by this court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f) was also denied.

Receiving no response to the motion to compel after the stay had been denied, appellee filed a motion for contempt. In granting the motion, the trial court found that the appellant had intentionally violated the court's prior orders, held appellant in contempt, ordered him to answer the interrogatories, and to pay a $1,000 sanction to appellee's counsel within ten days. This order was also appealed to this court and consolidated with the prior appeal.

After both appeals were filed, Appellant moved to relinquish jurisdiction and stay this appeal because the underlying California judgment was reversed upon appeal. Thus appellant could now move pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to vacate what is now a Florida judgment. § 55.503, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984). However, appellee resists the dismissal of this appeal because he claims that the jurisdictional issue and subsequent sanction imposed in the contempt order are not rendered moot by the reversal of the California action. We agree that the issues are not moot.

Foreign judgments are entitled to domestication in Florida pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984). This statute merely adopts the method by which foreign judgments, entitled to full faith and credit under constitutional standards, may become Florida judgments for enforcement purposes. As such, under the statute the judgment sought to be domesticated must be final. See Jones v. Roach, 118 Ariz. 146, 575 P.2d 345 (Ariz.App.1977), interpreting the identical Arizona Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Law. Whether or not the judgment is final must be determined by the law of the state of rendition, but where that state's law is not brought to the court's attention, the law of that state may be presumed to be the law of the forum state. See Aboandandolo v. Vonella, 88 So.2d 282 (Fla.1956).

In the instant case, no California law has been presented, so we presume that the law of California is the same as the law of Florida with regard to the finality of judgments. In Florida a judgment is final "[w]here nothing further remains to be done to fully effectuate termination of the cause between the parties directly affected except enforcement by execution or otherwise." Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So.2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accord Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). That termination occurs when the trial court loses jurisdiction over the cause upon the expiration of the time limits set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b). Pruitt, at 774. An appeal does not affect finality, but a party may stay enforcement of a judgment by posting a supersedeas bond in the case of a money judgment. Fla.R.App.P. 9.310. Therefore, we conclude that the California judgment was final when rendered and that it was entitled to enforcement pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984) at the time it was recorded in Florida. No stay was requested of the Florida court, nor was it brought to the trial court's attention or our attention that enforcement had been stayed in California. Consequently, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to act in the enforcement proceedings in this case.

The second question is whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the person of appellant. While appellant appears to be a non-resident and was not served with process in this case, he voluntarily entered an appearance by moving for a protective order against the taking of depositions without asserting his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. In that motion he claimed that he was not given notice of the taking of deposition and request for documents to which he as a party was entitled under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(b). Further, he made substantive objections to the extent of discovery requested from third parties. There is nothing in the record presented to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Bakalarz v. Luskin, s. 88-3141
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 18, 1990
    ...Great Am. Mortgage Corp., 507 So.2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Haney v. Olin Corp., 245 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); In re Ivey, 319 So.2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 323 So.2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The court also ha......
  • Caufield v. Cantele
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 19, 2002
    ...the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary. See Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So.2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Courts that have held that orders merely determining costs, espe......
  • Larsen v. Farmers Ins. Co., 18176-2-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • January 8, 1996
    ...preclude new suit in rendering state); Century Int'l Management v. Gonzalez, 601 So.2d 105, 107 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla.App.1989) (finality determined by law of state of rendition); King v. Hanson, 192 Ill.App.3d 966, 140 Ill.Dec. 106, 107, 549 N.E.2d......
  • Snider v. Metcalfe, 4D13–4043.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 4, 2015
    ...where the defendant sought discovery in the proceedings before asserting the claim of lack of personal jurisdiction); Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So.2d 308, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (finding a defendant waived his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction where he “made an appearance and claimed ri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Florida's third species of jurisdiction.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 82 No. 3, March 2008
    • March 1, 2008
    ...567 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000)("not contempt to disobey an order entered without personal jurisdiction over the accused"); Joannou v. Corsini 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1989) ("lack of personal jurisdiction makes such order voidable only, not (14) Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927), ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT