The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 55
JUDGMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 55.605

55.605 Grounds for nonrecognition.—

(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.

(b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

(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.

History.—s. 5, ch. 94-239; s. 1359, ch. 95-147; s. 78, ch. 99-251; s. 11, ch. 2001-154; s. 8, ch. 2005-241; s. 1, ch. 2009-232; s. 1, ch. 2018-37.

F.S. 55.605 on Google Scholar

F.S. 55.605 on Casetext

Amendments to 55.605

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 55.605

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 55.605.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

VUILLERMIN, v. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC EUROPE BV,, 233 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . not fall within any of the limited and enumerated grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 . . .

In F. ALAMA, v. F., 500 B.R. 887 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2013)

. . . Under Florida law, Except as provided in [§ ]55.605 [outlining grounds for nonrecognition], an out-of-country . . .

TETTAMANTI v. OPCION SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,, 67 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . to appeal,” and provided the Florida court does not find grounds for nonrecognition under sections 55.605 . . .

OSORIO, De De v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, a, 635 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 55.605 (presenting the various grounds for nonrecognition under the Act). . . . Stat. § 55.605(l)(b)-(c) (“(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if: (b) The foreign . . . Id. § 55.605(l)(a). . . . See id. § 55.605(2)(c) (“(2) An out-of-country foreign judgment need not be recognized if: (c) The cause . . . Id. § 55.605(l)(a). The plaintiffs appealed. . . .

EOS TRANSPORT INC. v. AGRI- SOURCE FUELS LLC,, 37 So. 3d 349 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 55.605(l)(b), Fla. Stat.; see Chabert, 694 So.2d at 811-12. . . . See §§ 55.605-.606, Fla. Stat. No Florida state court has squarely addressed the issue. . . .

OSORIO, v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY,, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Stat. § 55.605. . . . Stat. 55.605 § (1)(a). . . . Stat. § 55.605(1)(a). . . . Stat. § 55.605. . . . Stat. § 55.605(2)(c). . . .

ISRAEL, v. FLICK MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC., 23 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . is also “conclusive between the parties” and enforceable in this state “[e]x-cept as provided in s. 55.605 . . . Section 55.605 provides only ten grounds on which recognition of an out-of-country foreign money-judgment . . . personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. § 55.605 . . . Rather, section 55.605(2)(a) — -the only provision of the Act potentially authorizing an attack on a . . . defendant received “notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend.” § 55.605 . . .

STROD, v. LEWENSTARK,, 958 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 55.604(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Except as provided in s. 55.605, an out-of-country . . .

NICOR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION a k a v. EL PASO CORPORATION f k a El, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . Contrary to Parties’ Agreement The Uniform Act provides, in relevant part, “[ejxcept as provided in s. 55.605 . . . Pursuant to section 55.605, a foreign judgment need not be recognized under the Uniform Act if, among . . . under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court.” § 55.605 . . . federal policy in favor of enforcing agreements to arbitrate disputes, this Court refuses, under § 55.605 . . .

NADD, v. LE CREDIT LYONNAIS, S. A., 804 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2001)

. . . . — Except as provided in s. 55.605, a foreign judgment meeting the requirements of s. 55.603 is conclusive . . . the foreign judgment shall be enforced in the same manner as the judgment of a court of this state. 55.605 . . . criteria, it is entitled to recognition unless one of the grounds for nonrecognition enumerated in section 55.605 . . . See § 55.605. . . . Important for its absence from section 55.605 is any provision that the forum state’s statute of limitations . . .

LE CREDIT LYONNAIS, S. A. v. NADD, a k a R., 741 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Nadd did not attack the recording on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in section 55.605, . . .

HAMILTON BANK, N. A. v. KOOKMIN BANK,, 999 F. Supp. 586 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . . §§ 55.605(1)(b), 55,606 (West 1998); see also Chabert v. . . .

LAAGER, v. KRUGER,, 702 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Based upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that none of the grounds listed in section 55.605 . . .

CHABERT, v. BACQUI, 694 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . This ground is based on section 55.605(l)(b) of the Act, which provides that “[a] foreign judgment is . . . Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms . . . This contrasts with subsection (2) of section 55.605 which is phrased in permissive terms. . . . Unlike the grounds in subsection (l)(b) of section 55.605, this is not a mandatory basis for refusing . . . See § 55.605(2) (b), Fla. . . .