Stern v. Dejong
This text of 462 So. 2d 41 (Stern v. Dejong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Stern appeals from a final judgment granting appellee’s motion for directed verdict and dismissing, with prejudice, his ac[42]*42tion to have full faith and credit given to a Georgia judgment. We reverse.
The trial court's dismissal was based upon the unavailability of one of the parties, Eagle Marine, Inc. of Miami. Eagle Marine, Inc. of Miami had been involuntarily dissolved by Florida’s Secretary of State more than three years prior to Stern’s filing his complaint in Florida.1
Florida courts are bound to recognize and give full faith and credit to a properly authenticated judgment or decree rendered by a sister state. U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1. The judgment or decree from the other state forms the basis for the cause of action, and the validity of the claim upon which the foreign judgment was entered is not open to inquiry. Trauger v. A.J. Spagnol Lumber Company, Inc., 442 So.2d 182 (Fla.1983).
We are unpersuaded by Stern’s argument that the Georgia judgment is against appellees jointly and severally, thereby readily allowing a cause of action against less than all of the obligors. Judgments are to be interpreted so as to effectuate their intended purpose and construed in light of the entire record. “[T]he legal effect, rather than the mere language used, governs the construction of a judgment.” Boynton v. Canal Authority, 311 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In the absence of the Georgia trial record, we have considered the language of the trial court’s judgment2 and the consideration and interpretation of the Georgia appellate court in affirming the judgment3 to conclude that the Georgia judgment imposed joint liability upon appellees.
At common law, if one of the joint obli-gors died before the joint obligation was discharged, the surviving obligors alone could be sued. Corlett v. Oliver, 107 Fla. 403, 144 So. 877 (1932); Phillippi Creek Homes, Inc. v. Arnold, 174 So.2d 552 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1965). We see no reason to make a distinction between a deceased joint obli-gor and a “dead” corporation.4 Stern’s common law right to collect from the surviving joint obligors would not be extinguished, as appellees argue, by his inability to maintain an action against a “dead” obligor. We, therefore, reverse for this reason.
[43]*43The trial court’s final judgment of dismissal is reversed and this cause is remanded with the previously issued order of partial summary judgment reinstated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
462 So. 2d 41, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2650, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-dejong-fladistctapp-1984.