Pratt v. Equity Bank, N.A.

Decision Date01 November 2013
Docket NumberNo. 5D12–4622.,5D12–4622.
Citation124 So.3d 313
PartiesJohn R. PRATT, Appellant, v. EQUITY BANK, N.A., et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Benjamin E. Hillard of Hillard Law Group, P.A., Largo, for Appellant.

Elizabeth M. Bohn of Jorden Burt, LLP, Miami, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Appellant, John Pratt, appeals a non-final order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned for failure to comply with a court order compelling him to produce documents.This dispute arises out of Appellee, Equity Bank's attempt to enforce a Kansas judgment in a Florida circuit court. Pratt concedes that the Kansas judgment is enforceable in Florida, but argues that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. For a Florida court to have personal jurisdiction, Pratt contends, Equity Bank must personally serve him with process, in accordance with Florida statutory procedures. We disagree and affirm.

On July 14, 2010, Equity Bank obtained a default judgment (“the Kansas judgment”) against Pratt in the District Court of Miami County, Kansas. On October 11, 2010, Equity Bank filed and recorded the Kansas judgment in Osceola County, Florida pursuant to the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, §§ 55.501–.509, Fla. Stat. (2008). In accordance with section 55.505, the clerk of the court mailed a notice of recording of the judgment to Pratt at his Florida address by registered mail with return receipt requested. The mailing was returned unclaimed.

Thereafter, Equity Bank took various steps to enforce the Kansas judgment, including serving Pratt with a request for production of documents pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.350 and 1.560. When Pratt did not comply with the request, the trial court entered an order to compel, ordering Pratt to produce the documents. When Pratt again failed to comply, Equity Bank filed a motion seeking sanctions. Specifically, Equity Bank asked the court for a writ of bodily attachment, to hold Pratt in contempt, and for attorney's fees. Equity Bank served Pratt with this motion and a copy of the notice of hearing by mail and e-mail.

At the next hearing, Pratt's counsel made a special appearance, arguing that the order to compel was void because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Pratt. The trial court rejected Pratt's jurisdictional argument and entered an order to show cause directing Pratt to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The order also provided that Pratt could avoid sanctions by producing the requested documents at least ten days before the next hearing.

Although Pratt continued to contest jurisdiction, he was unsuccessful, and the trial court entered a third order to show cause on July 27, 2012. Pratt appealed this order and filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal. We dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The trial court then entered an amended third order to show cause, ordering Pratt to appear on December 12, 2012, and noting that failure to appear would result in a writ of attachment being issued directing the Sheriff to bring Pratt before the court. Again, the order stated that Pratt could avoid sanctions by complying with the discovery request. Pratt timely appealed.

A trial court's determination of personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Re–Emp't Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

The Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA) provides a procedure for the holder of a foreign judgment to record the judgment and enforce it in Florida courts under Florida rules as if it were a Florida Judgment. See§ 55.503, Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Fazzini v. Davis, 98 So.3d 98, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“When a foreign judgment is domesticated, it becomes enforceable as a Florida judgment.”). The FEFJA stems from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Archbold Health Servs., Inc. v. Future Tech Bus. Sys., Inc., 659 So.2d 1204, 1205–06 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The purpose of the FEFJA is to provide a speedy and efficient method of enforcing foreign judgments “without the further cost and harassment often incurred [with] an entirely new and separate action....” Id. at 1206. Thus, it does not require that the judgment creditor file a new lawsuit. Haigh v. Planning Bd. of Medfield, 940 So.2d 1230, 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). However, it also does not “impair the right of a judgment creditor to bring an action to enforce his or her judgment instead of proceeding under [the FEFJA].” § 55.502(2), Fla. Stat. (2008).

In order to render a foreign judgment enforceable in Florida, the judgment creditor must record the judgment and provide the clerk of the circuit court with an affidavit setting forth the last known address of the judgment debtor. Id. § 55.505(1). Once the foreign judgment is recorded, the clerk is to mail notice of the recording, by registered mail with return receipt requested, to the judgment debtor. Id. § 55.505(2). The statute makes clear that a properly recorded judgment will 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.” Id.§ 55.503(1).

Upon recordation, the judgment debtor has thirty days to file an action contesting either the validity of the foreign judgment or the jurisdiction of the court that entered the foreign judgment. Id.§ 55.509(1). If the judgment debtor wishes to dispute the original judgment, it is incumbent upon him, not the judgment creditor, to initiate a new lawsuit. See id.; see also Haigh, 940 So.2d at 1233 (discussing this procedure, but allowing judgment debtor to dispute enforcement without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Patrick v. Hess
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 16, 2017
    ...undue cost and difficulty associated with filing a new, separate action to domesticate a foreign judgement. Pratt v. Equity Bank, N.A. , 124 So.3d 313, 315–16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Archbold Health Services, Inc. v. Future Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. , 659 So.2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)......
  • Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 2013
  • New v. Bennett
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 4, 2018
    ...the undue cost and difficulty associated with filing a new, separate action to domesticate a foreign judgment. Pratt v. Equity Bank, N.A. , 124 So.3d 313, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). A foreign judgment domesticated under FEFJA has the same effect as a Florida judgment and is subject to the sam......
  • Hess v. Patrick
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 2015
    ...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 unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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