Sargeant v. Al-Saleh
137 So. 3d 432
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Creditor Al‑Saleh obtained a $28.8 million jury verdict and final judgment against debtors Sargeant, Abu‑Naba’a, and International Oil Trading Co., LLC; this court previously affirmed the judgment.
- Creditor moved for proceedings supplementary under §56.29, Fla. Stat., seeking an order compelling the debtors to turn over stock certificates evidencing ownership in several foreign entities.
- Debtors asserted the stock certificates (and the underlying assets) are located outside Florida — in the Bahamas, Netherlands, Jordan, Isle of Man, and Dominican Republic — and argued Florida courts lack jurisdiction to compel turnover of foreign property.
- Trial court (without an evidentiary hearing) ordered the debtors to turn over the stock certificates to their counsel; debtors appealed that nonfinal order.
- Appellate court considered whether Florida’s §56.29 authorizes a turnover order affecting property located outside the state when the court has in personam jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Florida court may order turnover of stock certificates located abroad under §56.29 | Al‑Saleh: In personam jurisdiction over debtors permits ordering them to transfer foreign assets or documents evidencing ownership | Debtors: §56.29 does not apply extraterritorially; foreign‑located assets require enforcement under foreign law/domestication procedures | Court reversed: Florida courts lack authority to compel turnover of property located outside Florida under §56.29 |
| Whether General Electric (ordering return of foreign property) controls | Al‑Saleh: GE supports ordering debtor to act regarding out‑of‑state property where in personam jurisdiction exists | Debtors: GE is distinguishable because GE involved a perfected lien and return of property to Florida | GE distinguishable; not controlling here |
| Whether Koehler (N.Y. decision permitting turnover of foreign certificates) should be followed | Al‑Saleh: Koehler shows a court may order turnover absent express territorial limits in statute | Debtors: Koehler is distinguishable because that court had personal jurisdiction over the garnishee bank; Florida statute and policy differ | Court declines to follow Koehler; distinguishes based on jurisdiction over garnishee and statutory context |
| Policy and procedural implications of allowing extraterritorial turnover orders | Al‑Saleh: (implied) facilitates collection | Debtors: Permitting such orders would undermine foreign‑judgment domestication, create competing claims, and disrupt forum clarity | Court agrees with defendants on policy concerns and reverses trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargeant v. Al‑Saleh, 120 So.3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (prior appeal affirming judgment)
- Donan v. Dolce Vita Sa, Inc., 992 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discussing trial court discretion in supplementary proceedings)
- Paciocco v. Young, Stem & Tannenbaum, P.A., 481 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Florida courts lack in rem jurisdiction over foreign property)
- General Electric Capital Corp. v. Advance Petroleum, Inc., 660 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (in personam jurisdiction can permit orders requiring debtor to act regarding foreign property where lien/perfection present)
- Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533 (N.Y. 2009) (New York Court of Appeals allowed turnover of foreign stock certificates from a garnishee bank; treated as distinguishable and not followed)