ANTHONY LLITERAS A/K/A ANTONIO LLITERAS, APPELLANT,
v.
KAROLYNNE M. LLITERAS, AND ANTHONY, MICHAEL, KRISTINE AND ANN MARIE LLITERAS, MINORS, BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND, KAROLYNNE M. LLITERAS, APPELLEES
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.
Defendant appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss a complaint to domesticate and enforce a New Jersey divorce decree requiring alimony and child support payments. The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that denial of a motion to dismiss does not finally determine liability and does not qualify for interlocutory appeal.
The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss does not determine the issue of liability and does not constitute a final appealable order. Defendant may raise various defenses, including payment, statute of limitations, and collateral attacks on jurisdiction, in an answer to the complaint.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to domesticate a foreign judgment is not an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3…
[2] A motion to dismiss a complaint to domesticate a foreign judgment does not determine the issue of liability, as a defendant may assert various defenses in an answer.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We disagree with defendant's characterization of the order in question (which simply denied the motion to dismiss) as determining the issue of liability in favor of the Plaintiffs. There are a variety of defenses that a defendant may direct to a complaint to domesticate and enforce a foreign judgment or decree, such as payment, the statute of limitations, a collateral attack on jurisdiction, to name a few.”
Establishes that denial of a motion to dismiss does not determine liability and that multiple defenses remain available to defendant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed suit in Florida to domesticate a New Jersey final divorce decree dated May 3, 1976, which required defendant to pay alimony and child…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Iii) cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Plaintiffs filed suit in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit to domesticate a New Jersey final decree of divorce that required defendant to pay alimony and child support. The complaint also sought a writ of Ne Exeat. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied and the court deferred action on the Ne Exeat request. Thereupon defendant filed this appeal, ostensibly pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Plaintiffs have not favored us with a brief.
In his brief defendant states:
“Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint to establish a Foreign Decree as a Florida Judgment alleging that pursuant to a New Jersey Divorce Decree entered on May 3, 1976, they are entitled to immediate monetary relief, to wit: alimony and/or support arrearages.
“The substantive issues of support of alimony were ones in which the obligations of the Defendant had already been set forth by the New Jersey Trial Court as aforesaid.
“The prior adjudication of Defendant’s obligations by the New Jersey Court is tantamount to a ruling of liability in a non-domestic case, since Defendant’s obligations for support and/or alimony are not being re-litigated. Therefor (sic), this Appeal is brought pursuant to 9.130(a)(3)(C)(IV) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
We disagree with defendant’s characterization of the order in question (which simply denied the motion to dismiss) as determining the issue of liability in favor of the Plaintiffs. There are a variety of defenses that a defendant may direct to a complaint to domesticate and enforce a foreign judgment or decree, such as payment, the statute of limitations, a collateral attack on jurisdiction, to name a few.
We also are unable to concur with defendant’s contention that
“due to the summary nature of a Complaint to establish a Foreign Decree, the Trial Court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss — especially with regards to support and/or alimony arrearages-— was a ruling that foreclosed Defendant’s substantive defenses and thus determined Plaintiff’s right to immediate monetary relief. Therefor (sic) this appeal is also brought pursuant to 9.130(a)(3)(C)(III).”
Once again we suggest that whatever substantive defenses defendant has may be asserted in an answer to the complaint.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxwell Dauer and Reva B. Dauer v. Freed, 444 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…he party seeking affirmative relief) and is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a). Cf. Seigle v. Barry, 422 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss not appealable); Lliteras v. Lliteras, 413 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (same); Habelow v. Travelers Insurance Co., 389 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (same); Peavy v. Parrish, 385 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (same); Vaneo Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corporation, 378 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980…
-
Kiser v. Jones, 488 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…It is therefore apparent that the order did not determine “the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief,” [e.s.] so as to permit review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See Lliteras v. Lliteras, 413 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see generally Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bruns, 443 So. 2d 959 (Fla.1984); Dauer v. Freed, 444 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal, sua sponte, is dismissed.…
-
Phalle v. Francios de Saint Phalle (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)