Roosa v. Roosa, 4-86-1676
| Decision Date | 10 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-86-1676,4-86-1676 |
| Citation | 519 So.2d 1108,13 Fla. L. Weekly 429 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 429 John ROOSA, Appellant, v. Charlotte ROOSA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Catherine Rafferty of Miller, Squire & Rafferty, Chartered, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Ida M. Lawry of Ida M. Lawry, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
In 1982 Charlotte Roosa, appellee here, successfully sought domestication in Florida of her New Jersey divorce decree. In 1984, having moved back to New Jersey she obtained from the New Jersey court an order holding John Roosa in contempt. Subsequently, she filed a motion with the Florida court which had domesticated the divorce decree, seeking a contempt order on the same grounds that had prompted the New Jersey court to enter its contempt order. That motion was denied without prejudice and without any stated reason.
Thereafter in 1986, Charlotte Roosa filed a "Motion to Domesticate a Foreign Contempt Order or Declare said Order an Extension of Originally Domesticated Final Judgment of Divorce." The motion was granted by the order on appeal here.
A foreign order of contempt is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida if it is valid in the state in which it was issued. Robinson v. Robinson, 487 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (). The question here, however, is not entitlement of the New Jersey order to full faith and credit in the Florida court. Rather, the issue is whether the trial court retained jurisdiction by virtue of the original domestication action to domesticate the contempt order on application by motion in the original action. We hold that it did not.
When the time expired for filing a petition for rehearing on the Florida court's final judgment domesticating the New Jersey divorce decree, the Florida court lost jurisdiction of the case. See Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (). See also Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, DOT, 315 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Investment Corporation of South Florida v. Thoroughbred Breeders Association, 256 So.2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 261 So.2d 844 (Fla.1972).
Appellee argues that the object of the motion to domesticate the New...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v. Weiss
...of contempt is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida if it is valid in the state in which it was issued.” Roosa v. Roosa, 519 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). To the extent that Florida must enforce the Illinois judgment of contempt, I agree with the majority. However, I am of t......
-
New v. Bennett
...of contempt is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida if it is valid in the state in which it was issued." Roosa v. Roosa, 519 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a sister state's judgment must be recognized, but it may be attacked for e......
-
Department of Transp. v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 89-982
...court's jurisdiction over a case ends if no motion for rehearing is filed before the expiration of that period, Roosa v. Roosa, 519 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, the order was filed on August 17, 1988, and the Department filed no motion for rehearing thereof. Therefore, if the......
-
Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West
...to enter the September 24th order, because it was not entered within the ten days provided in rule 1.530. See also Roosa v. Roosa, 519 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ("When the time expired for filing a petition for rehearing ... the Florida court lost jurisdiction of the The facts in......