Florida Statutes 55.605 – Grounds for nonrecognition
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if:
(a) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
Terms Used In Florida Statutes 55.605
- Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
- Fraud: Intentional deception resulting in injury to another.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Trial: A hearing that takes place when the defendant pleads "not guilty" and witnesses are required to come to court to give evidence.
(b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
(c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(2) An out-of-country foreign judgment need not be recognized if:
(a) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend.
(b) The judgment was obtained by fraud.
(c) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.
(d) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive order.
(e) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court.
(f) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
(g) The foreign jurisdiction where judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this state.
(h) The cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless the court sitting in this state before which the matter is brought first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the United States Constitution and the State Constitution.
(i) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
(j) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.