LOTTIE BRUENN AND RICHARD SWITLIK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY SWITLIK, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
GREAT ADVENTURE, INC., 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's refusal to allow a defendant to attack a domesticated New Jersey judgment on grounds of alleged fraud in the original New Jersey proceeding. The court held that fraud claims must be raised in the originating jurisdiction, not collaterally in domestication proceedings, particularly when the defendant was aware of the alleged fraud before domestication.
A trial court properly refuses to permit a defendant to go behind a domesticated Florida judgment based on alleged fraud in the original New Jersey court judgment. Fraud claims must be addressed in the courts of the state where the fraud allegedly occurred, and defendants cannot raise such defenses collaterally in domestication proceedings, especially when they knew of the alleged fraud before domestication occurred.
[1] A trial court may refuse to permit a party to attack a domesticated foreign judgment based on alleged fraud in the rendition of the original judgment when the alleged fra…
[2] A party aware of alleged fraud in the rendition of a foreign judgment may be precluded from raising that defense in domestication proceedings if they failed to raise it e…
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“We find no error in a trial court refusing to permit a defendant to go behind a Florida judgment, which domesticated a New Jersey judgment, when the alleged attack is bottomed on an alleged fraud in the New Jersey court in the rendition of the original judgment.”
States the core holding that fraud claims cannot be raised collaterally in domestication proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn original judgment was rendered in New Jersey in 1977 in favor of Hardwicke's New Jersey Preserves, Inc. and Great Adventure, Inc. against judgment …
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.
We find no error in a trial court refusing to permit a defendant to go behind a Florida judgment, which domesticated a New Jersey judgment,1 when the alleged attack is bottomed on an alleged fraud in the New Jersey court in the rendition of the original judgment.
First, because the alleged fraud, if any, occurred in the New Jersey court and no attack on this ground has been made in the courts of New Jersey.2 Second, the defend ants were aware of the alleged fraud prior to the domestication of the foreign judgment and failed to raise this defense therein, if it was available. We do not here decide the availability of such defense in the domestication proceedings. Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Wise v. Tucker, 399 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Kimbrough v. McCranie, 325 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Alexander v.
First National Bank of Titusville, 275 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Corrigan v. Corrigan, 184 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Vandervoort, Sams, Anderson, Alper & Post, P.A., v. Vandervoort, 529 F. 2d 424 (5th Cir. 1976).
Therefore the order striking the defense and the summary judgment, which is the subject matter of appeal in Case No. 82-1383, is affirmed. The order denying the rehearing, which is the subject matter of Case No. 82-1919, is also affirmed. State v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 187 So. 2d 890 (Fla.1966); State v. Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1963); Scott-Whitaker Company, Inc., v. Joyce Properties, Inc., 155 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
. The original litigation commenced in New Jersey in 1973, final judgment in New Jersey was rendered in 1977, the Florida proceedings resulting in the domestication to the foreign judgment occurred in 1978, no appeal from this judgment was taken. In 1981, one of the judgment debtors died. A claim was made in his estate. The claim was objected to and the instant lawsuit was filed in the trial court in 1981.
. The validity of the original judgment has been the subject matter of extensive appellate proceedings in the state courts of New Jersey, as well as review having been sought in the United States Supreme Court. Switlik v. Hard- wicke Corp., 446 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1866, 64 L.Ed.2d 281 (1980).
It was also the subject matter of an original civil rights action in the Federal Courts. Switlik v. Hardwicke Company, Inc., 651 F. 2d 852 (3rd Cir.1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1064, 102 S.Ct. 614, 70 L.Ed.2d 601 (1981).
In none of these proceedings was the issue of the alleged fraud raised although it is clear from this record that if there was any fraud the judgment debtors were aware of it, at least by June 1976. The original judgment creditor’s corporations were Hardwicke’s New Jersey Preserves, Inc. and Great Adventure, Inc. The appellee, Great Adventure, Inc., is successor in interest to the original judgment creditors by merger and name change.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eugene W. Owens v. Honorable Tillman Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1963)
- Anne Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Alexander v. First Nat'l Bank OF Titusville, 275 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Earl Faircloth v. The Dist. Court OF Appeal, 187 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1966)
- Novack Inv. Co. v. Setser, 454 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1981)
- Switlik v. Hardwicke Co., Inc., 454 U.S. 1064 (U.S. 1981)
- Switlik v. Hardwicke Corp., 446 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1980)
- Morrison Kimbrough & Pace Fin. Co., Inc. v. McCRANIE, 325 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Hueter v. Lutheran Soc. Servs. of Cent. Ohio, 446 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1980)
- Switlik v. Hardwicke Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 852 (3d Cir. 1981)