F.V. DE ARAUJO S.A. MADEIRAS, AGRICULTORA, INDUSTRIA E COMERCIO

v.

DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT CO.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July¹⁰, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1618 Lower Tribunal No. 20-4708 ________________

F.V. de Araujo S.A. Madeiras, Agricultora, Industria e Comercio, Appellant,

vs.

Dantzler Lumber & Export Co., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Ft. Lauderdale); Barakat + Bossa, PLLC, and Giacomo Bossa, for appellant.

Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Jordan S. Cohen (Ft. Lauderdale) and Ethan A. Arthur (Tampa), for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

LINDSEY, J.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case stems from a 2001 maritime shipping dispute that arose when a Danish vessel failed to deliver a shipment of lumber that Appellee Dantzler Lumber & Export, Co., a Florida-based buyer, ordered from Araujo, a Brazil-based seller. In December 2001, Dantzler and Araujo brought a joint action in Brazil against the vessel’s owner. A Brazilian court ordered the owner to issue a clean bill of landing, but the order was ignored. This resulted in a drawn-out dispute between Araujo and Dantzler. In December 2003, Araujo sued Dantzler in Brazil seeking payment for the lumber.¹

ANALYSIS

We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the Act and its legal determination that the May 2004 Order is not a foreign final judgment for the

“States are not required to recognize judgments rendered in foreign countries under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States.” Osorio v. Dole Food Co., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2009), aff’d sub nom. Osorio v. Dow Chem. Co., 635 F. 3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). However, Florida, like other states, has adopted a variant of the Uniform Foreign Money–Judgments Recognition Act. See §§ 55.601-07, Fla. Stat. (2023). “The [Act] was adopted in Florida in 1994 to ensure the recognition abroad of judgments rendered in Florida.” Nadd v. Le Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 804 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 2001). “[T]he intent of the Act .

3 Both parties cite the standard of review that is applicable when reviewing orders dismissing for failure to state a cause of action, which requires accepting the allegations in the complaint as true. However, we need not go there because nowhere in the Act or case law are pleadings required. See Chabert v. Bacquie, 694 So. 2d 805, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The common law procedure for recognition of a foreign money judgment . . . was cumbersome because it required an entirely new action, with its own pleadings and evidence, simply to go after property of the judgment debtor within our jurisdiction. . . . The Act certainly remedies . . . these concerns and provides a speedier and more certain framework for recognition.” (emphasis added)).

Nadd, 804 So. 2d at 1228–29.

“Under the [Act], a foreign judgment is prima facie enforceable if it ‘is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered, even though an appeal therefrom is pending or is subject to appeal.’” Osorio, 665 F. Supp. 2d at 1323–24 (quoting § 55.603, Fla. Stat.). “The party seeking enforcement has the initial burden of proof that the judgment is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered.” Id. at 1324; see also Nadd, 804 So. 2d at

Araujo failed to meet its initial burden. Below, Araujo struggled to produce a Brazilian final judgment, and after attaching numerous documents (many of which were not judicial orders), it ultimately relied on the May 2004 Order. But this Order contains no indication that it is final. See, e.g., S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (“Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.”). Indeed, it is clear from the record that judicial labor in Brazil continued well after entry of the May 2004 Order.

Moreover, the Act defines an “out-of-country foreign judgment” as “any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money . . . .” § 55.602(2) (emphasis added). The May 2004 Order, on its face, does not grant or deny recovery of any sum of money. The Order simply explains that Araujo’s “Monitory Action” was converted into an “Enforcement Action”

Araujo, in the alternative, seeks recognition of the alleged foreign judgment under the common law doctrine of comity. Araujo argues that

III.

CONCLUSION

Because the May 2004 Order is not an out-of-country foreign final judgment within the meaning of the Act, it is not subject to recognition or enforcement in Florida. We therefore affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice. Affirmed.

4 Nahar was originally decided in 1993, before the Act’s enactment. See Ch. 94-239, Laws of Fla. (creating the Uniform Out-of-country Foreign Money- Judgment Recognition Act, effective October¹, 1994). Although the en banc opinion in Nahar was issued after the Act’s effective date (June 1995), it does not mention the Act and only addresses common law comity, which was controlling at the time of the panel opinion.