ADOLFO GIRAU, APPELLANT,
v.
ADRIANA LLOVET GIRAU, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a Florida court's attempt to domesticate a foreign judgment against a former husband residing in Louisiana. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the husband lacked sufficient connection to Florida for personal jurisdiction.
The trial court erred by entering a final judgment while motions to vacate the default and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction were pending. Furthermore, the husband did not have sufficient connection with Florida to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.
[1] A final judgment consequent upon a default should not be entered while motions to vacate the default and to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction are pending.
[2] A court may not exercise in personam jurisdiction over a defendant when insufficient connection exists between the defendant and the forum state to make it fair to requir…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“First, it was plainly error to deny the motion for rehearing because the final judgment consequent upon the default should not have been entered where the motions to vacate the default and to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction were pending.”
Establishes the procedural error of entering judgment while jurisdictional challenges were pending.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wife, now a Florida resident, filed an action to domesticate a foreign judgment against her former husband who remained in Louisiana. The husband wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestication Of Foreign Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife, a resident of Louisiana, filed this action to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to section 55.501, Florida Statutes (1987) after she and the children of the marriage had become domiciliaries of Florida. The former husband remained in Louisiana. The wife’s complaint did not allege that the husband was personally amenable to jurisdiction under section 48.-193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987).
The husband was personally served and had actual notice of the action in Louisiana. Eventually, the wife procured a default because of the husband’s failure to file a responsive pleading. Twelve days after default, the husband filed a motion to set aside the default as well as a motion to dismiss the action for want of in personam jurisdiction. Before these motions were heard and determined, final judgment consequent upon the default and for the amount of alimony and child support arrearage was entered by the trial court. Three weeks thereafter, the husband filed a further motion for rehearing.
The trial court denied the motion for rehearing. The husband appeals.
We reverse.
First, it was plainly error to deny the motion for rehearing because the final judgment consequent upon the default should not have been entered where the motions to vacate the default and to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction were pending. See Pennebaker v. Jefferson Parish, 383 So. 2d 484 (La.Ct.App.1980).
Second, had the court heard and determined the motion to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction, it could only have properly concluded under Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) that insufficient connection existed' between the husband and Florida to make it fair to require the husband’s defense of this action in Florida. See Laney v. Laney, 487 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Overcash v. Overcash, 466 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Gioia v. Gioia, 435 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
For the foregoing reasons, the final judgment appealed is reversed with directions to grant the husband’s motion to dismiss for want of in personam jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durand v. Durand, 569 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…uperior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).* The husband next contends that the trial court erred by setting the case for trial without disposing of the motion to dismiss. As that should not have been done, see Girau v. Girau, 544 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we reverse the final judgment and remand with directions to deny the motion to dismiss and reschedule the matter for trial in accordance with Rule 1.440, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In order to assure that there be no inter…
-
Segal v. Madelyn Russell, 553 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e attending, or had attended, public schools in Florida while the mother resided here, and that the father communicated with the children here, does not create such contacts with Florida as to make appellant amenable to jurisdiction. Girau v. Girau, 544 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Gioia v. Gioia, 435 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Accordingly, we hold that appellee failed to show sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to enable the courts of Florida to obtain jurisdiction over appellant under section 4…
Authorities Cited
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal. in & for the City & Cnty. of San Francisco (horn, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978)
- Laney v. Laney, 487 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Overcash v. Bettye S. Overcash, 466 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Gioia v. Gioia, 435 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)