Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8072
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Corzo Trucking obtained an amended final judgment against West on March 6, 1985, amending a final judgment from June 5, 1984.
- Corzo could not initially enforce the judgment and in 2001 filed the Florida judgment in Georgia where West resided.
- Georgia held the enforcement period was governed by Georgia’s ten-year limit and that the limitations began when the Florida judgment was rendered in 1985.
- On August 3, 2006 Corzo filed a Florida action entitled “Complaint to Renew Judgment,” West was served in Georgia on August 11, 2006, and the circuit court entered a default final judgment on September 14, 2006 stating the judgment was renewed and accruing post-judgment interest.
- Georgia later held the 2006 renewal was unenforceable; in 2009 Corzo pursued two Florida tracks: a new action on the judgment and a Rule 1.540(a) relief request.
- The Florida Supreme Court held that Corzo was authorized to bring an action on the 2006 judgment and that Rule 1.540 relief was not abused in denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Corzo authorized to sue on the 2006 judgment? | Corzo; the 2006 judgment is a new independent action. | West; the 2006 renewal may not extend the life of the judgment. | Yes; Corzo was authorized to bring the action on the judgment. |
| Does the language 'renew' in the 2006 judgment affect its enforceability as a renewal? | Corzo; the words describe effect of action on a judgment, not create a longer life. | West; renewal language could imply a longer enforceable period. | Words do not bar an action on the judgment; it creates a new independent judgment. |
| Was the circuit court proper in dismissing the 2009 action and in denying Rule 1.540(a) relief? | Corzo; the action on the judgment should proceed. | West; limitations and procedural rules foreclose the action and relief. | No abuse of discretion; but the court reversed the dismissal of the action on the judgment and affirmed the denial of Rule 1.540 relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Nuta, 26 So.2d 670 (Fla.1946) (action on judgment constitutes a new independent action)
- Petersen v. Whitson, 14 So.3d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (continuing jurisdiction over defendant in an action to renew the judgment)
- Burshan v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 805 So.2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (distinguishes scire facias from an action on a judgment; explains 20-year life of a Florida judgment)
- Adams v. Adams, 691 So.2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (new independent judgment may reset limitations under certain theories)
- Ramos v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 743 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (limitations defense must be pleaded; waiver if not pleaded)
- Klee v. Cola, 401 So.2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (cannot relitigate merits in an action on a judgment)
- Massey v. Pineapple Orange Co., 100 So. 170 (Fla. 1924) (distinguishes continuation of original action from new action on judgment)