EUGENE HASKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH HASKIN, 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.
Eugene Haskin appeals a circuit court order modifying a New Jersey divorce decree by increasing permanent periodic alimony to his former wife, Judith Haskin. The Fourth District affirms, holding that the trial court properly modified the alimony award based on a substantial change in circumstances, and that formal domestication of the foreign decree was not a prerequisite to modification.
The trial court properly modified the alimony award even without express formal domestication, as substance must be elevated over form and the record clearly demonstrated the former wife sought domestication. A foreign support decree is subject to modification based on a substantial change in circumstances, as it is only res judicata as to the duty to support under the circumstances existing at the time of the original judgment.
[1] A foreign judgment establishing a duty of support is subject to modification in the future and is only res judicata of the duty to support under the circumstances existin…
[2] The Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act does not preclude a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment.
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“substance must be elevated over form so that the order should be treated as if it expressly stated what it clearly involved[,] the domestication of the New Jersey decree”
Establishes the court's substance-over-form approach to finding implied domestication without express statutory compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene and Judith Haskin were divorced in New Jersey in 1981 with a decree establishing permanent periodic alimony. In April 1992, Judith filed a peti…
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 Establishment Of Foreign Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eugene Haskin, the former husband, appeals a circuit court order modifying a New Jersey divorce decree by increasing permanent periodic alimony in favor of the former wife, Judith Haskin. We affirm.
On April 13,1992, the former wife filed a petition seeking to establish the New Jersey decree, and subsequent modifications, as a Florida judgment. In June 1992, the former wife filed an amended petition. The petition also sought an increase in permanent alimony payments because of a “substantial change” in her circumstances. In 1993, the trial judge dismissed the case. This court reversed in Haskin v. Haskin, 677 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and remanded the case for a new hearing. The case proceeded to trial on the amended petition on January 11, 2000. The trial court entered its order granting modification on January 27, 2000.
We write primarily to address one issue. The former husband argues that the trial court erred in ruling on the modification because no order expressly domesticated the New Jersey decree that the former wife sought to modify.
From the record, it does not appear that the former wife sought to domesticate the New Jersey decree pursuant to the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, sections 55.501-55.509, Florida Statutes (2000). However, the Act does not preclude a common law action to enforce a final judgment; section 55.502(2) provides that the Act “shall not be construed to impair the right of a judgment creditor to bring an action to enforce his or her judgment instead of proceeding under this act.” See Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So. 2d 1165, 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. granted, 760 So. 2d 947 (Fla.2000).
In evaluating the modification order in this case, we agree with the approach of the third district in Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 518 So. 2d 986, 987-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), that “substance must be elevated over form” so that the order should be “treated as if it expressly stated what it clearly involved!,]” the domestication of the New Jersey decree. The original complaint sought domestication. It was clear that the former wife sought an upward modification of the alimony award in the New Jersey decree. The trial court considered and rejected the argument that modification should be left to the courts of New Jersey under the facts of this case. Apart from the issues litigated at trial concerning the propriety of the modification, there was no legal reason precluding domestication.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar the former wife from seeking a modification. “A foreign decree that determines a duty to support and sets the amount of support is subject to modification in the future and is therefore only-res judicata of the duty to support under the circumstances existing at the time of the judgment.” Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122, 1127-28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (Cowart J., concurring) (footnote omitted). Because the trial court based its order on the former wife’s change in circumstances, the order determined issues not dealt with by the 1981 New Jersey order. AFFIRMED.
DELL, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michael, 832 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…it was actually recorded. Therefore, simply recording the judgment pursuant to the FEFJA should not be viewed as an independent action on a judgment that would fall under the statute of limitations in section 95.11(2)(a). See also Haskin v. Haskin, 781 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (differentiating between seeking to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to the FEFJA and pursuing a common law action to enforce a final judgment). Section 55.505, Florida Statutes, sets forth the procedures by which a…
-
N.Y. State Comm'r of Taxation & Fin. v. Friona, 902 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t has previously held that section 95.11, Florida Statutes does not apply. See Muka v. Horizon Fin. Corp., 766 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Michael v. Valley Trucking Co., 832 So. 2d 213, 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Haskin v. Haskin, 781 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)) (differentiating between seeking to domesticate a foreign judgment pursuant to the FEFJA and pursuing a common law action to enforce a final judgment). In Muka and Michael, this court determined the act of domesticating a forei…
-
Emiddio v. Fla. Off. of Fin. Reg., 147 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…by new facts, changed conditions, or additional submissions by the applicant.” Id. Likewise, with collateral estoppel, the doctrine will not be applied if there is a change in circumstances creating a new issue to be litigated. See Haskin v. Haskin, 781 So. 2d 431, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Krug v. Meros, 468 So. 2d 299, 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (“[W]e note that the doctrine of estoppel by judgment does not apply where unanticipated subsequent events create a new legal situation.”). “[T]he determination of wheth…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Haskin v. Haskin, 677 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- LE Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. Nadd, 741 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Pettigrew v. Ellis D. Pettigrew, 518 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)