Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 1, 2017 by admin

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

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.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982