CHARLES JOSEPH KELLENBENZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CONSTANCE KELLENBENZ, 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 matrimonial appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's establishment of a Canadian divorce decree as a Florida judgment and its subsequent enforcement of alimony and child support arrearages accruing after the establishment order, while invalidating a duplicate judgment signed several days later.
The 1973 judgment establishing the foreign decree was sufficiently final to enforce future obligations arising under it, and the September 20, 1977 judgment enforcing arrearages accruing after establishment was proper. However, the duplicate judgment signed on October 3, 1977 was a nullity.
[1] A foreign decree establishing alimony and child support obligations is given full faith and credit and is enforceable as a Florida judgment.
[2] A trial court's order establishing a foreign decree as a Florida judgment is final as to obligations accruing after the establishment of the foreign decree.
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“the establishment of the foreign decree was complete as to obligations thereunder accruing in the future, and the appellant was directed to comply therewith”
Establishes that the 1973 judgment was sufficiently final to enforce future obligations under the Canadian decree
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1973, the circuit court established a Final Decree of Divorce from the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada (dated December 21, 1970) as a Florida judg…
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.
In 1973, the circuit court established a foreign decree as a Florida judgment, which reads in part as follows:
* * * * * *
“THIS CAUSE having come on before me upon Final Hearing on March 7, 1973, and the Court having heard the testimony and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby “ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Final Decree of Divorce between the parties hereto entered by the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada, on the 21st day of December, 1970, is hereby established as a Judgment of this Court and the same is given full faith and credit as though it were a Judgment of this Court, and it is “ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant, CHARLES JOSEPH KEL-LENBENZ, shall obey provisions of the said Final Decree as though fully set forth herein, and it is * * * ”
* * * * * *
Appellant argues that the judgment of March 27, 1973 was not a final judgment because the court retained jurisdiction to consider memorandums of law as to whether it had power of contempt over actions committed by appellant prior to the Florida court adopting the Canadian judgment.
Subsequently, the appellee commenced proceedings to collect arrearages for payments due after March, 1973. Upon appropriate petitions, the trial court found an arrearage and entered judgment on September 30, 1977 for such arrearages in alimony and child support. Thereafter, on October 3, 1977, the trial judge apparently signed a duplicate original of the judgment; it is identical in form as to that signed on September 20, 1977. The appeal was taken from both judgments.
The appellant contends that the judgment establishing the foreign decree rendered in 1973 was not final in nature and, therefore, not subject to enforcement; also, that the trial court erred in signing the subsequent judgment of October 3, 1977. The appellee concedes the latter point but, as to the former, urges that the establishment of the foreign decree was complete as to obligations thereunder accruing in the future, and the appellant was directed to comply therewith and, therefore, the order of the trial judge enforcing the Florida judgment on the foreign decree was proper. Sackler v. Sackler, 47 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1950).
A different result might have obtained as to any attempt to enforce a judgment for arrearages that accrued prior to the establishment of the foreign decree, but such a result is not applicable to the amounts due subsequent to the establishment of the foreign decree.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment of September 20, 1977 be and the same is hereby affirmed, and the final judgment of October 3, 1977 be and the same is hereby declared to be a nullity and of no force and effect.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spikes v. State, 375 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ithout proving that the appellant had used a firearm in the commission of a felony. Thus, the latter offense would be a “category three” lesser included offense of the former, thereby precluding separate sentences for both. See also Walton v. State, 360 So. 2d 60 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the trial court with directions to set aside the sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Otherwise, both judgments and the sentence for the felony of robbery with the use o…