Background
Herman Tarnow, a lawyer, was found liable in a New York jury trial for wrongful termination of his employee, Theodora Benedict. The judgment totaled $352,817.97, comprising back pay, emotional distress damages, and pre-judgment interest. After Benedict’s death, Richard Watson, as personal representative of her estate, domesticated the New York judgment in Collier County, Florida, by recording it under the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA), §§ 55.501–55.509.
Tarnow filed an action in Collier County challenging the validity of the domesticated judgment on several grounds, including extrinsic fraud. He sought to set aside the recording and obtain both immediate and permanent injunctions staying execution. Watson moved to dismiss, arguing that Tarnow had failed to comply with FEFJA § 55.509 requirements: filing the challenge within 30 days of recording, recording a lis pendens, and posting security as determined by the court.
The trial court granted Watson’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, concluding that Tarnow “failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous requirements of § 55.509.” The court ordered Tarnow to comply or face dismissal with prejudice. When Tarnow did not amend his complaint, the trial court entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Tarnow had a right to maintain his action challenging the judgment’s validity even without satisfying the statutory conditions for staying enforcement. The court held that § 55.509’s conditions—the 30-day window, lis pendens requirement, and security bond posting—apply only to obtaining or maintaining a stay of enforcement. These conditions do not restrict a judgment debtor’s right to commence or maintain an action contesting the judgment itself.
The court reasoned that FEFJA contemplates “litigation over the validity of the judgment would be initiated by [the] judgment debtor” and that the judgment debtor can file a challenge more than 30 days after recording and without seeking a stay of enforcement. The trial court therefore erred in dismissing Tarnow’s complaint based solely on his failure to comply with stay procedures, and in conditioning his maintenance of the action on compliance with § 55.509 requirements.
The court reversed the dismissal orders and remanded for further proceedings, noting that it was not addressing the substantive pleading sufficiency of Tarnow’s extrinsic fraud or other challenges to the judgment’s validity, as the trial court had dismissed only on procedural grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Under FEFJA, a judgment debtor can file an action challenging a domesticated foreign judgment without first satisfying the statutory conditions for staying enforcement.
- § 55.509 conditions (30-day filing, lis pendens, security bond) are conditions for obtaining or maintaining a stay, not conditions for commencing or maintaining a challenge to the judgment.
- A judgment debtor is not barred from pursuing a collateral attack on the judgment’s validity merely by failing to comply with stay procedures.
- Trial courts cannot condition a judgment debtor’s right to sue on compliance with FEFJA’s stay requirements as a threshold matter.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the procedural rights of Florida judgment debtors challenging domesticated foreign judgments and protects access to the merits of those challenges. By separating the procedural requirements for obtaining a stay from the right to challenge judgment validity, the court ensures that judgment debtors are not locked out of collateral attacks on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or other substantive defects simply because they cannot or do not post security within strict time windows. This is significant because FEFJA’s streamlined domestication process, while efficient for creditors, could have unfairly restricted debtors’ ability to raise legitimate defenses.
The decision will impact collection enforcement practice across Florida, as it means judgment creditors cannot use procedural non-compliance as a basis to bar validity challenges. Judgment debtors will be able to litigate the merits of domestic enforcement of foreign judgments without first having to navigate strict procedural hurdles or post potentially costly security bonds.