ROBERT T. FARLEY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA JEAN FARLEY, 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.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order appointing an Ohio receiver as an ancillary receiver to sell Florida real property pursuant to an Ohio divorce decree. The court held that the Ohio decree's provision ordering the sale and equal division of proceeds constitutes an in rem judgment affecting title to real estate in Florida, which the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction to enter and therefore is not entitled to full faith and credit.
The court reversed the appointment of the Ohio receiver as ancillary receiver, holding that the Ohio decree's provision for sale and division of Florida real property constitutes an in rem judgment affecting title to realty in another state, which the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction to enter and which is therefore not automatically entitled to full faith and credit.
[1] An order appointing a receiver is reviewable on appeal as a non-final order when the issue concerns the right to immediate possession of property.
[2] Florida courts generally recognize a foreign receiver's standing to bring an action within the state based on principles of comity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“granting this relief to the foreign receiver effectively causes a de facto partition of the Florida property by utilizing a sale by receiver in lieu of a partition proceeding”
Explains why the Ohio decree's enforcement mechanism exceeds the foreign court's jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Farleys were divorced in Ohio. The Ohio divorce decree ordered that the parties' real property in Florida be sold and the net proceeds divided equ…
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 Partition Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse a non-final order appointing an Ohio receiver as an ancillary receiver to list and contract for sale, to convey, and to divide the proceeds of real property located in Florida pursuant to the Farleys’ Ohio divorce decree.
The Ohio decree, among other things, ordered that the parties’ real property in Florida be sold and that the proceeds be equitably divided by the parties.
Sometime thereafter, on the wife’s motion, the Ohio court appointed the receiver. The Ohio order appointing the Ohio receiver was apparently approved by the husband. The Ohio receiver filed this action for appointment as the ancillary receiver, explaining that he had been appointed as receiver by the Ohio court.
The husband’s motion to dismiss the receiver’s complaint to open the ancillary proceeding, and his opposition to the appointment of the Ohio receiver in this state, was denied. An order of a court appointing a receiver is reviewable on appeal as a non-final order where the issue is the right to immediate possession of property. See Bayview Homes Co. v. Sanders, 102 Fla. 516, 136 So. 234 (1931). Applying principles of comity, Florida courts generally recognize a foreign receiver’s standing to bring an action in this state. See S. Colonization Co. v. Parten, 83 Fla. 300, 91 So. 263 (1922); Metro. Inv. Corp. v. Buchler, 575 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Belle Island Inv. Co. v. Feingold, 453 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
In this instance, however, granting this relief to the foreign receiver effectively causes a de facto partition of the Florida property by utilizing a sale by receiver in lieu of a partition proceeding. The Ohio decree orders that “the real estate shall be sold and the net equity, after costs of sale, and any required remediation costs shall be divided equally.” Such a provision is not automatically entitled to full faith and credit as its enforcement requires the application of in rem jurisdiction. See Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
In Sammons, the former wife sought to enforce a Colorado dissolution of marriage judgment against her former husband. The foreign judgment ordered the equal division of proceeds from the sale of four pieces of Florida real estate. See id. at 224. The Sammons court found that, “[o]n the merits, the Colorado decree was not entitled to full faith and credit and its consequent enforcement because it constituted an in rem judgment, directly affecting the title to realty in another state, and was to that extent therefore entered without jurisdiction.” Id. at 225. We can discern no basis for failing to apply the Sammons reasoning here.1 See also Wentworthe v. Cusumano, 689 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(citing Sammons and agreeing that the New York court did not have jurisdiction to order the sale of the Florida property).
POLEN, C.J., STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur. . We note that, as to the receiver/sale issue, the Ohio decree does not purport to act in personam, as an order directing one spouse to convey his or her interest in property to the other. Such an order by an out of state court having personal jurisdiction would be entitled to full faith and credit. See Gardiner v. Gardiner, 705 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Sammons.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeMELLO v. Buckman, 916 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…cut property. We agree with DeMello that the court did not have the authority to order the sale of the property or impose a lis pendens on the Connecticut property. See Polkowski v. Polkowski 854 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Because we are reversing on this ground, we also note that the order with respect to the disposition of the property is itself contrary to the trust provisions. First, the court ordered the property to be titled in both sisters…
-
Polkowski v. Polkowski, 854 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…n that portion of the final judgment ordering the partition and sale of the North Carolina property. See Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see also Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore reverse the judgment in part and remand the case to the trial [*287] court. Upon remand, the court may reconsider the distribution of all marital assets in light of this opinion. See Pawlik, 545 So. 2d at 507. A…
-
Hirchert Fam. Tr. v. Johnee Ann Alle Hirchert, 65 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…tside of the circuit in which the subject property was located could order specific performance of a contract for sale of that land; but holding the portion of the order purporting to transfer title to that property unenforceable); Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that an out-of-state order to sell real property located in Florida was not entitled to full faith and credit because enforcement requires the application of in rem jurisdiction; but noting that an out-of-state orde…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edmond Jordan Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Belle Island Inv. Co., Ltd. v. Laurence Feingold, 453 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Gardiner v. Gardiner, 705 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Bayview Homes Co. v. Sanders, 102 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1931)
- Metro. Inv. Corp. v. Buchler, 575 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- S. Colonization Co. v. Parten, 83 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1922)
- Easley v. State, 689 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)