55.605
Grounds for nonrecognition.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
55.605 Grounds for nonrecognition.—
(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if:
(a) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
(b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
(c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(2) An out-of-country foreign judgment need not be recognized if:
(a) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him or her to defend.
(b) The judgment was obtained by fraud.
(c) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.
(d) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive order.
(e) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in that court.
(f) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action.
(g) The foreign jurisdiction where judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this state.
(h) The cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless the court sitting in this state before which the matter is brought first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the United States Constitution and the State Constitution.
(i) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
(j) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
History.—s. 5, ch. 94-239; s. 1359, ch. 95-147; s. 78, ch. 99-251; s. 11, ch. 2001-154; s. 8, ch. 2005-241; s. 1, ch. 2009-232; s. 1, ch. 2018-37.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Osorio v. Dole Food Co.
Osorio v. Dole Food Co. (2009)
“Fla. Stat. § 55.605 . 8 In this case, Defendants contend that each mandatory ground, as well as the discretionary public policy and fraud grounds, bar enforcement of the judgment.”
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
Nadd v. Le Credit Lyonnais, SA (2001)
“See § 55.605. Important for its absence from section 55.”
Nicor International Corp. v. El Paso Corp. (2003)
“Pursuant to section 55.605, a foreign judgment need not be recognized under the Uniform Act if, among other reasons, “[t]he proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by…”
Eos Transport Inc. v. Agri-Source Fuels LLC (2010)
“See §§ 55.605-.606, Fla. Stat. No Florida state court has squarely addressed the issue.”
Le Credit Lyonnais, SA v. Nadd (1999)
“Nadd did not attack the recording on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in section 55.605, which deals with due process, personal jurisdiction, lack of notice, subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, contravening Florida's public policy, forum inconveniens, and lack of…”
Laager v. Kruger (1997)
“Based upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that none of the grounds listed in section 55.605, Florida Statutes, are present in this case to justify nonrecognition of the Cayman Islands judgment.”
Osorio v. Dow Chemical Co. (2011)
“See Fla. Stat. § 55.605 (l)(b)-(c) (“(1) An out-of-country foreign judgment is not conclusive if: (b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant [or] (c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject mat *1279 ter.”
Israel v. Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc. (2008)
“§ 55.605, Fla. Stat. (2008). Rather, section 55.”
Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi Electric Europe Bv (2017)
“Contrary to Vuillermin’s argument, the foreign judgment does not fall within any of the limited and enumerated grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 of the Act. Vuillermin may not avoid the foreign judgment based on lack of personal service; he failed to raise…”
Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi Electric Europe Bv (2017)
“Contrary to Vuillermin’s argument, the foreign judgment does not fall within any of the limited and enumerated grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 of the Act. Vuillermin may not avoid the foreign judgment based on lack of personal service; he failed to raise…”
ZSR Patlayici Sanayi A.S. v. Sarac Distributors LLC (2020)
“§ 55.605.3 Without deciding whether the statute could apply, Sarac’s argument falls short because it relies on allegations well outside the Complaint with no support.”
— 55.605(1)(a) — 1 case
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
— 55.605(1)(b) — 1 case
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
— 55.605(2)(a) — 2 cases
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
Israel v. Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc. (2008)
“§ 55.605, Fla. Stat. (2008). Rather, section 55.”
— 55.605(2)(b) — 1 case
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
— 55.605(2)(e) — 1 case
Nicor International Corp. v. El Paso Corp. (2003)
“Pursuant to section 55.605, a foreign judgment need not be recognized under the Uniform Act if, among other reasons, “[t]he proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be settled otherwise than by…”
— 55.605(2)(g) — 1 case
Chabert v. Bacquie (1997)
“Preliminarily, we note that subsection (1) of section 55.605 of the Act is phrased in mandatory terms: if any of the grounds listed in subsection (1) are found to exist, then the foreign judgment is not conclusive, and a Florida court cannot recognize it.”
— 55.605(2)(j) — 1 case
— 55.605(l)(a) — 1 case
Israel v. Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc. (2008)
“§ 55.605, Fla. Stat. (2008). Rather, section 55.”
— 55.605(l)(b) — 1 case
Eos Transport Inc. v. Agri-Source Fuels LLC (2010)
“See §§ 55.605-.606, Fla. Stat. No Florida state court has squarely addressed the issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.