NEIL MALONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN H. HICKS, 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.
In this appeal of a foreign judgment enforcement action, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the plaintiff because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant actually received notice of the Arkansas proceedings, which was essential to the jurisdiction of the original court.
Summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the defendant's receipt of the Arkansas mailings, and such factual determinations cannot be made on summary judgment. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of fact, with all inferences drawn in favor of the opposing party.
[1] A Florida court may refuse to enforce a foreign judgment if the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
[2] A defendant may challenge the validity of a foreign judgment by asserting that the rendering court failed to acquire personal jurisdiction.
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“In order to grant the motion for summary judgment, it was necessary for the trial court to make a factual determination concerning the defendant's receipt of the Arkansas mailings and such a determination is not permissible in connection with a summary judgment.”
Establishes that summary judgment was inappropriate because it would require resolving a factual dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff obtained a $3,000 judgment against defendant in Arkansas without personally serving the defendant. Plaintiff then sued on the foreign judgme…
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 Enforcement Of Foreign Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff obtained a $3,000.00 judgment against defendant in the State of Arkansas. The defendant was not served personally within or without Arkansas and did not appear or defend. Plaintiff then brought suit on the foreign judgment in Florida. This appeal is from the entry of a final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We reverse.
In pleading to the complaint, the defendant affirmatively set forth the following defense:
The Judgment here sued upon, issued by an Arkansas Court is illegal and void, and is an act in excess of the jurisdiction of the said Arkansas Court in that the Arkansas Court had not law*621fully acquired jurisdiction of the person of the Defendant herein, who was not served with process or otherwise notified of the pendency of the Arkansas proceedings, * * *
The affidavit filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories do not clearly indicate which of two Arkansas statutes were utilized to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. However, as applied between these parties, both statutes require a mailing to be sent to the defendant and for a receipt or other evidence of personal delivery to the addressee to be obtained.
Copies of affidavits filed in connection with the Arkansas suit were attached to the plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories. These affidavits state that the required statutory mailings were delivered by postal authorities to the defendant in Florida but were refused. In an affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment the defendant denied any knowledge of the Arkansas suit. In order to grant the motion for summary judgment, it was necessary for the trial court to make a factual determination concerning the defendant’s receipt of the Arkansas mailings and such a determination is not permissible in connection with a summary judgment.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of fact. All inferences of fact must be drawn from the proof in favor of the party opposing the motion. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Stuckey, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 421.
A genuine issue of material fact exists and for this reason the trial court is precluded from entering summary judgment.
Reversed.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Einhorn v. Home State Sav. Ass'n, 256 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…pon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.” . No issue is made as to the sufficiency of compliance with statutory requirements as was the case in Maloney v. Hicks, Ma.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 620. . See 27 A.L.R.3d, 397, at 429. See also Simonson v. International Bank, 1964, 14 N.Y.2d 281, 251 N.Y.S.2d 433, 200 N.E. 2d 427. . See the Annotation appearing in 27 A.L. R.3d 397 on the subject of isolated acts or single transactions as a basis…
Authorities Cited
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stuckey, 220 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)