42
Fla. L. Weekly D2486aTop of Form

Creditors’
rights — Foreign judgments — Recognition and enforcement — French money
judgment met requirements of Florida’s Uniform Out-of-country Foreign
Money-Judgment Act and did not fall within any of the limited and enumerated
grounds for non-recognition specified in section 55.605 of the Act — Judgment
debtor could not avoid foreign judgment based on lack of personal service where
he failed to raise issue initially in foreign court of competent jurisdiction,
and foreign court authorized garnishment of judgment in that jurisdiction
despite defendant’s unsuccessful appearance to object to such enforcement —
French judgment need not be refused recognition because it was based on default
— Debtor’s reference to his open and obvious residence in Florida does not
alter his status as a French national who absconded from jurisdiction, and
record is devoid of any proffer by debtor of a pleading seeking to vacate
French court’s findings on that point

CHRISTOPHE VUILLERMIN, etc.,
Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC EUROPE BV, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D17-672. L.T. Case No. 13-34723. November 22, 2017. An Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I. Rodriguez, Judge. Counsel: Joel M. Aresty
(Tierra Verde), for appellant. EPGD Attorneys at Law and Oscar A. Gomez, for
appellee.

(Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER
and FERNANDEZ, JJ.)

(SALTER, J.) Christophe Vuillermin,
a/k/a “Andre Martin,” a/k/a “John A. Smith,” appeals two orders1 granting recognition and enforcement
of a foreign (French) money judgment against him pursuant to Florida’s Uniform
Out-of-country Foreign Money-Judgment Act,” sections 55.601-.607, Florida
Statutes (2017) (the “Act”). The creditor seeking recognition and enforcement
of the French judgment against Vuillermin is the appellee, Mitsubishi Electric
Europe B.V. (“Mitsubishi”).

Vuillermin, a French citizen, was
charged with, and convicted of, multiple counts of criminal fraud in France.
The District Court of Paris, France, found Vuillermin guilty of financial
crimes committed against Mitsubishi and other victims between 1995 and 1997
under the false name of “Andre Martin.” As a corollary to the criminal charges,
and as permitted by the French procedural code, Mitsubishi sued Vuillermin for
civil damages based on the fraud. In the criminal case, Vuillermin was
sentenced to prison and probation. He absconded after completing his prison
term.

In the civil action, the French
court entered a judgment against Vuillermin in 2006, in the amount of
237,438.11 Euros. Mitsubishi then began garnishment proceedings in France.
Vuillermin objected to the garnishment solely on the grounds that he was not
given notice of the rendition of the 2006 judgment. Vuillermin did not assert
lack of personal service. The French court upheld the validity of the judgment
and the garnishment, finding that Vuillermin had fled the jurisdiction to avoid
prosecution and had not provided a current, valid address for notice. Under
French procedure, this also supported the judgment without further personal
service. Vuillermin appealed the garnishment, but the French court of appeals
rejected his objections and affirmed the garnishment judgment.

In 2013, Mitsubishi began
proceedings to domesticate the French judgment in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court,
filing the affidavit and following the procedure specified in the Act.
Vuillermin objected and argued that he was not personally served with process
in France, making the French judgment unenforceable. Mitsubishi’s response to
the objections appended the documents in the French proceedings. The objections
were set for a hearing, at which Vuillermin’s attorney did not appear.
Mitsubishi styled the next notice as a non-evidentiary, show cause hearing.
Vuillermin did not object or serve a written request for an evidentiary
hearing. After the hearing, the Florida court denied Vuillermin’s motion for
new trial and for rehearing. This appeal followed.

Analysis

The French judgment meets the
criteria for recognition under section 55.604 of the Act. 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 the issue initially in the foreign court
of competent jurisdiction,2 and the foreign court authorized
garnishment of the judgment in that jurisdiction despite his (unsuccessful)
appearance to object to such enforcement. Moreover, a French judgment need not
be refused recognition because it was based on a default. See Chabert
v. Bacquie, 694 So. 2d 805, 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Vuillermin’s reference to his open
and obvious residence in Florida does not alter his status in France as a
French national who absconded from the jurisdiction. The record is devoid of
any proffer by Vuillermin of a pleading seeking to vacate the French court’s
findings on that point, or establishing any basis under the Act for non-recognition.

Affirmed.

__________________

1A Florida
circuit court order of March 10, 2017, granted recognition and enforcement with
respect to a French money judgment in favor of the appellee issued in May 2006.
An order entered by the same court two weeks later denied Mr. Vuillermin’s
“Amended Motion for New Trial and Rehearing and Amendments of Judgment and for
Relief from Judgment, Decree, or Order re Order Granting Enforcement of
Judgment and Overruling Respondent’s Objections to Recognition.”

2Under the
French procedural rules, that argument was not available to him because he had
fled the jurisdiction.

* * *