EFTA00603809.pdf

Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 1 of 5 WestlawNext" I • Jounce v. Corlinl Ciseidauriesaisseinreas coMOUMµ Nava. IMO Masa XI 14V Ltsuay1092 Sea diseson t OisatowSWIta by fonthion. ha v beilmonala 2"" 212. 2" • — . . _ - . _ eS peania urges 543 So 20 30e pLIF) 543 So.2d 308 District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District. George C. JOANNOU, Appellant, v. Frank A. CORSINI, Appellee. Nos.82- 3136.88 - 0334 MeV3.109. in a proceeding to enforce a doMelticated foreign judgment. the defendant Wonted from orders of the Circuit Court &sward County. Constance toter°. J., welch granted plaInWfS motions to compel discovery and to hold defendant in contempt. After conaolidation. the Chat! Court Of Appeal. Warner. J.. held that: (1) trial coon had jurisdiction over the defendant; (2) even If vial court did not have personal funsaction over defendant so oak( defendant to answer iMerrOgatones. defendant was not greet disobey trial caves order. and (3) civil contempt oraer was rendered moot by reversal of foreign judgment to extent that a sought to compel defendant to answer the interrogate/nos. however. contempt order was not mOibt to extent that it awarded SlinCtorts to COnsel to comensate plamtiff for Na *Romer fern expended n securing congeance without discovery order. Affirmed In part, reversed in part, and remanded. West Headnotelit (3) Chance View 1 Judgment C Enforcement m other states Foreign judgment sought to be domesticated must toe final. Wears F.S.A. § 55.501. 1 Casa that cites this heat:Mote 2 Judgment Felon:ovum in other states Whether or not foreign lodgment is final. for purposes Of seeking domestication of that nu:foment must be determined by tee of state of ferldniOn. but where that states law is not brought to court's anenson. law of that state may be presumed to be law of forum slide. West's F S.A. § 55 501 3 Cases that Cite this headnote 3 Judgment %az F prat juilbment Judgment is final where nothing further terrains to be done to fuly (Meows* ternenation of muse between the parties dif828y agedee except enforcement by execution or otherwise 8 Cases that Ole !MS heacinote — • __ 4 Judgment fir= ' Enlorcernent in other states California judgment was renal when rendered and was erestid to enforcement pursuant to Florida statute governing dornestiostion of foreign judgments at emelt ' was recorded in Florida vitae no Stay was requested of Fiends court and where no enforcement had been stayed M California thus, Vial court had subject matter furisaction so act in ernarcemont pmteedngs. Wears F.SA § SS-501; Wears F.SA RCP Rule 1.530(b): West's F.SA RApp.Rute 9.310. 4 Cases that cite this heednole . - • --- . _ _ . 6 Court Stia Estoppel arismg from submitting to or invoking baud arm SELECTED TOPiCS ChM &PPM Monomers Proalors of Ur o,, Othrommit Feted° +wens Au Roos to Punish, we PrOcostirms Thwelor Cisme Cams Orden d Ina lad AAP Courts Rein Cdsri and Lama olJuntaclion PenenAl ,ArgiaCet end Venue ANN Sec cowlav Smears Conetructlai and effort of prevision ot -Ions reciprocal enforcement of appal act that no support Order that supersede or nullify My other order 31 ALRillh 3.17 (Onideilf ixesttiod 11.1 This annetlian casco our Inaba' me Ode and federal atm desire sib Po <outlaw ere itReCitYlne Patton y § 31 ot Me UMW,' R.ceoul Erioroomov et 5,0pOn act~ Words. ei Validity. COnlitniCUOn. and application of unttale enforcement a (*final pepsin ea 31 A L Ram 703 fetimaly Melythod 'sell _Ths arrotetan «Mai are amines ell SW Old WOW orb in Niel me casts nine dicase3 pe deCoded rayon. evolving in. SC*. CCettrbebOn Cr NeifratOr• of the lInAtim fintomovises Clung in CirtumatsnCes Juelitying ModifthatiOn of Chao Support Omer 1 MI Jul Proofed Facts 20 110tightmey atiathed n 1974) Ti.. Wn ants wry. soot ma CRUPOStatial elan 11.0014 SI dry dere an Poet sand sunned ale mods porton In • mono moo. and aim wow.. se bass of rat any ham monomial se. Alas soa-any Sans Notion for Wm of hansom' 2032 M. 3213342 Imiesn G JONES, Rellerer. v STATE or TEEMS. Adorney Canons and Mrphane 0 Oracesort Refilitediend Se eme Cad el re UMW 510•1 Omer 09. 2002 Send 0 Joni& poetess to Chou. ROSA.. Mornay 0101dincl, nand mead els Can m Java • INN of Cancan to moms* opinormi the Karon Can CA ACO•Sh bawd at A. ReSponerinTs Brief en Carborari i9S? (A4. $7211 Varesitia • Vamitredi Swims Con Wee Mood Sims Aped Ott 115? Pitons thiamin eons reds dos Paths of the MeMient d en Nos Vat Supreme Can doled Moen 30. less dt 2). afraid by we Ns. von. Cowl NA W+ (R 534, Meta Mere' Mccoem httpc/ ink/Document/FullTextilindType=Y&serNum=1989065877 .. 9/30/2014 EFTA00603809 Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 2 of 5 Defendant, against whom California judgment had been entered, waived drama lack of personal Jumada:in over proceeding' to enforce that judgment. which had been dornesbaated, when he voluntarily entered an appearance by moving for protective order against tna'g of depositions without asserting his claim of lack of personal pnisdsclion by nuking substantive objectons to extent of docoyery requested from third-parties 5 Cases Beal Ole this headnote — Pretrial Procedure rePo Order Compering Answer Even B teal coat did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant to order defendara to answer interrogatories. defendant was not free to disobey order of trial court 1 Case that cites this headnote 7 Contempt 4ie Validity of m- andate. order, or judgment Wen a party a charged wet contempt for waiting an order of court he may defend on ground that court was inroad jurisdictkin over the iterlY. Weever. party most Obey order until it is vacated or modified by gild 0301 or reversed on apnea. 3 Cases that ate this noadnote 8 Contempt 4-1- Review Appeal of civil contempt order. which was rioted against defendant in proceeding to firdoroe domesticate foreign judgment for fa tare to answer interrogateries, was rendered moot by reversal of foreign judgment to extent the: it sought to Compel defendant to answer the interrogatories. honeys. contempt order was not moot to extent matt awarded sanctions to plait/Offs counsel to compensate plaintiff for his attorney foes expended in securing compliance without discovery order. Attorneys and Law Finns '309 John Beranek of Klein, &Welt & UMW... West Palm Beach. and Kaye, Sacks% Flamer'. Hays & Handler. Los Angeles, Cal., for appenent Scott Jay Feder of Floyd. Pearson. Richman. Greer. Well, Zack 8 Brumbaugh.l.. Morn, for appellee. Opinion WARNER, Judge. Ths nondime appeal questions the junadcoon a the eel 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 Apat. 1987 appolee filed a California judgment in Florida pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statuses (Supp.1984). Notice was Sant to appesanl pursuant to the statute. and appellant does not Challenge the domeStKabon of the judgment ptrsuart to that statute in these proceedings In aid 01 eseCUtich on the domesticated judgment appellee set depositions and served subpoenas on the record Custodians of two Florida banks. In July Cl 1987, appellant made an appearance in the proceedings by Sing two notions tor proteanfe orders to prevent the taking or the depositions a bank Olklah. He claimed that as a party he was entitled to notice of the taking of depositions pursuant to Florida Rule of CM Procedure 1,351(b) vetch he did not Waive end he also argued that the notice demanded production of records regarding dealings of nisi.* who was not to the judgment. Nowhere in the '310 notion did the appellant challenge the lunsrabOn of the anal CCeStt over his person Subsequently. appear served volurrinous viten-Inatome on appellant in aid a execution Receiving no timely response. appellee fried a notion to compel answers to inierrogakorreS. and the vial court entered an agreed order compelling responses within ten days. Thereat:et. in objections to interrogationeS. appellant raised for ihe first time his contention Petition for WM of Prohibmon andor n the Namaere Welt of Mandamus X02 Vot 32135442 in Et lwhenG !ONES. Peteonw Swam Can a the cree0 Sure Ociobet W. flea .tsiaten G. amnia 80.3152. Vachw Kemal 57201 The /Wenn Ceram M Ow &Sol Tom oho &WOW tia echos. Seepterw 0. Goodson *awry Stara. o Jones Suwon» Can CenelJuswo Sae laws IMO* Thal Cain Dec umente In re Oath Funding, LLC 0I3NLMWOO In re Ocala Forens. LLC Lanes Ram lienteupiry Con., Flares Ant 20.2013 WItS CASE fawn towing Cft J010 14, 2013M 114LIT,L, Debtors WSW Entry otOtase Mgewng M Disown Seem* fin Froniduies for Sr Soilotegion at Teaks. in re Pacific Ethanol Halting Ca LLC 2000 WL 6189032 in is Pseek airway Hoene co tit Voted Stall BanA00frw COWL 0. Colawate May 17.2009 Paolo Stuns Helena LLC. ewes 01W01 MS. LLC, Pack Me* Columba. LLC. Podec Mind Simard LLC at Paolo Ettansi Max Waft. tic. Wawa tilde in ma • in re Paaftc Ethanol Molding Ca LLC ECOO Mt swam In re Perak Earn HOMI110 Ca LLC Wald Stein 0.10.004Cy C0.4. 0. 011••••• Wif t7. 2030 Pads Rhone Keep Ca. UC. Peens awns, Madera LLC. Psoac Mama Cantu. U.O. Paolo Erma SIOCIWY LLC as PaMc EVMMI JAW 1180•5, LLC. 04004P wtl antommonsammn et SW Se. Wye rw Goat cosines 9/30/2014 EFTA00603810 Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 3 of 5 that the trial court did not have eine:taw Over his person and further that the interrogatories were irrelevant. immaterial end that they exceed the number allowed under the rues. In response. adage moved to hold aPpeeent and his attorney in contempt a court when motion was withdrawn at hewing. Instead the tat court Ordered the aepellant to fee the answers within ten days. Appellant appealed the order compelling answers to this court pursueet to Florida Rule of APPefiate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(0(i) on the second tat the order granting the moan to compel necessarily overate has objection to arratielan and thus determined that the court had lunette:bon over hie person. Appellant MO a motion for stay of the tool court's order which was denied. Review by this court tauter Florida Rule of eppefia4 Procedure 9 310(1) was she dented. Receiving no response to the motion to compel after the stay had been denied, appellee Ned a motion for Goiania. In granting the motion. the Mal Court found boat the appellant had Intentionally violated the courts prior orders. held appellant in contempt. ordered him to answer the interrOgalOnes. and to pay a 31.000 seeclan to afeweeess counsel wenn ter days. This order was also appealed to the court and consoedated with the prior appeal. Mer both appeals were bbd. Appeaant moved .1 reenquish junadetiOn and stay this appeal because the underlying California judgment was reversed upon appeal Thus appestat could now move pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to vacate what is now a Florida judgment S 55 503, Fle.Stat (Supp.198-1). However. appease resists the dismissal of this appeal beicauSe he Claims that the jurisdictional issue and subsequent sanction imposed in the conteinpl order are not rendered moot by the reversal of the Catania action. We agree that the issues are not moot 1 2 Foreign judgments are entitled to domestication in Florida pursuant to section 55.501, apnea Statutes (Supp 1984). This statute merely adepts the method by write foreign judgments. *Melee to far faith and credit under constitutional standards, may become Florida judgments for enforcement purposes. As such, under me Made the judgment sought to be domesticated must be final. See Jones v Roach. 1 la Ariz 146. 575 Pgd 345 (Anz.epe1977). interpreting the identical Arizona Unifonn Enbrcerrent of Foreign Judgment Law. Vithether or not Vie judgment Is final must be determined by the law of the state of rendition. but where that Metes law Is not brought to the courts Menton, the law of that stale may be presumed to be the Ltrw of the Mum state. See Aboandandolo v. VOnCle. 88 So 20 282 fFla.1956) 3 4 In the Instant case. no California law has been presented. SO we presume that tne law of Cabana is the same as the law of Florida with regard to the finality of judgment). In Florida a judgment Is Mal lwpwire notmng further remains lo be done to fully effectuate termination 01 the cause between the parse. direcey affected except cam ereiment by execution a Othentese." Chan v. Brunswick Corp. 388 So.2d 274. 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). MOMS Pruitt v. Brock 437 So 2d 766 (Fla 1st DCA 1963). That lemenation occurs when the Vial court Saesjurisdiction over the cane upon lie expiration of the the Kra set forth in Florida Rule of CNA Procedure 1 530()). Hue. at 774 An appeal does not affect finality, but a pay nay Hay enlacement as judgment by posing a Plasma/ea teed in the case of a money judgment. 9 310. Therefore, we conclude that tie Carona judgment was final when rendered and that it was ameba to enforcement pursuant to section 55.501. Flonda Statutes (Supp.1984) at the lime d was recorded in Florida. No stay was requested of the '311 Florida court, nor was It brought to the that courts anent/co or our attention that enforcement had been stayed in CalifOrria. Consequently. the Vial court had subject matter jurisdiction to act In the enforcement proceedings in this case 5 Tne second questein le whether the foal court had jurisdiction over the person of appellant theta appellant appears to be a non-resident and was not served with process in this case. he voluntanly entered art appearance by moving for a proteetmt order against the taking of depositions without asserting his Wire of lack of personal priedelion In that motion tie claimed that he was not gran notice of me wring a deposition and request for document* to whet', to es a partywas enticed under Fonda Rule of Civt Procedure 1.351 (b). Further. he made substantive objections to the extent of discovery requested from third pries Team is nothing m the record presented to shoe Mahar an order was entered on this motion, although appellee states in his Mel that a hearing was held on the motion and the motion was demed Nevertheless. appellant made an appearance and dared rights under the Florida Rues ol Cm' Procedure which are a veleta to parties then the appellant makes such an appearance n these proceedings he is deemed to have waived his claim or lock of peisdicoon Cumberland &Own Inc v Gnat Asuman mortgage Corp. 507 So 2.1 https://a.next.westlaw.corraink/Doeumcnt/Fut1Text?findType=Y&serNurn=1989065877... 9/30/2014 EFTA00603811 Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 4 of 5 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, when the that court entered ft order competing ascovery had toth subiect matter jurisdiction and personal iurediebon ova the defendant And consequently. it also had the authority to enforce its order 6 7 As to the centre( oraer, not only do we find that there was personal lurisascbon of the appellant but also even if the trial court did not have personal redden at the time to order appellant lo answer the interroartales. appellant was not free to disobey the Order of the trial court. When a party n charged with contempt for in rang an order of the coed. he may defend on the ground that the court was without jurodicbon over the party. However, the party most Obey the Order Nita it is vacated or mocefled by the trial curt or reversed on appeal. Kaybr v. Kayla... 468 Ser.2d 1253 (As 2d DCA 1985); Jameson v. State. 447 So.20 892 (Fla 4th DCA 1983). WM. 465 $o.2d 380 (Flat 1904)- IA ainnen- this court dearly hell that when the part's ern is that the cart does not have iunsacton over by person to surer hen to the orders of the mutt lack of personal hutschcbon makes such order voidable only. not void. 'One may not disobey with impunity the order of a cart which is merely vocable. as here! Jameson at 1598. We (lather find that the anal court had authority lo determine the moron for contempt notwithstanding the appeal Of the order compering diSCOvery to this court Wattnem A Condominium Association v Village Management Inc. 330 Sold 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 19hr FMS Management Systems. Inc v IDS Mortgage Corm 402 So.20 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). 8 However wet now come to the question of whether the appeal is moot. The contact proceeding is unquestionably OW n nature. In a civil contempt proceeding an offended party to the cause re primarily seenng relief, personal and private to hmsert as dretinguished frorn punishment for conduct offensive to the pubic or asrespeant to the court and as authority_ Demean v State. 89 So 20 498 (Fla.11543) in the instant ease the discovery tour was for appellee's personal and private interest in enforcing the California judgment Slice that iudgment wroth was sought to be enforced b this Florida salon is of no further force and effect, the appellee can no longer seek relief in the way of discovery gong toward the enlacement or the ragmen!, u appellee n his brief even concedes. Thus. to enforce that portion of the order which compels the appellant to answer the interrogatories would ere at this point act as a punishment to Wear which is not the primary purpose of civil contempt. We therefore vacate as moot eo much of the contempt order as requires appellant to answer the interrogatories and respond to the request for prediction. However, as to the award of sanctions to appelee's counsel which. based upon the 112 sena vits presented below, were so Dampens* appellee for his attorneys fees upended in securing compliance with the valet order of the that earl we affirm. Perna v. T a M InveStments. Inc. 455 Scrod 673 (fie 3d DCA sorry That compliance with the Oidel requinng snares to interrogatories has been rendered moot try subsequent events aces not erase the efficay of the attempts by appellee's attorneys 10 seek comported with the discovery orders which al the tine were improperly reared by appesant In summary, we hckl that the tall court did have .vrisdcbon over the appellant in ties Derr and appellant was required to obey the orders Cl the trial court. However. since execution on the judgment has been rendered moot by the reversal of the California tudgment It follows that compliance with discovery a meet Ne.allokiss, al hough the part of the purge provision of the contempt order roguing compliant/twin discovery is moot that patron requiring payment of sanctions for attorneys fees to appellee's counsel is not moot and neat be compered with by the appellant. We therefore affirm the order competing discovery which determined the issue of personal proselecton, reverse in pal the order of contempt, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. ANSTEAD and OLICKSTEIN. Ii., concur. Parallel Citations 14 Fla. 4.. Vileeidy 1092 End of Document Oar Thema reuses to OFT* 019016 V 5 Omenwentwxs https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1989065877.. 9/30/2014 EFTA00603812 Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 5 of 5 WessioRN•si 0 20n Theemen Flours 1403-RIF-AM (1-40:14342teR ic) 7404,33, Qtatie; 9/30/2014 EFTA00603813