Judgments, Enforcement of

• Author: International Law Group

The defendants (below and in the Florida proceedings) are Geoffrey Saldanha, Leueen Saldanha and Dominic Thivy, residents of Ontario. They agreed to sell a vacant lot located in Sarasota County, Florida to Frederick H. Beals-III and Patricia A. Beals, the plaintiffs (in both proceedings) for about $8,000. A controversy broke out, inter alia, as to which lot was involved and, in September 1986, the plaintiffs sued the defendants and two others in the Sarasota County courts. Defendants responded to the original complaint but decided not to defend the complaint as altered by the Second and Third Amendments. Under Florida rules of procedure, however, the failure to file defenses to the amendments amounted to a default as to the entire lawsuit.

In July 1990, the Florida court duly noted that defendants lay in default on liability and notified them that there would be a jury trial to determine damages. Defendants neither replied to the notice nor did they put in an appearance personally or through counsel at the damages hearing. In early December of 1991, the jury awarded the plaintiffs US$ 210,000 in compensatory damages and US$ 50,000 in punitive damages, plus 12 percent per annum post-judgment interest.

When the Ontario defendants got the notice of the adverse monetary judgment a few weeks later, they consulted an Ontario attorney. The lawyer advised them that the plaintiffs would not be able to enforce the foreign judgment in Ontario because the defendants had not "attorned to the Florida court's jurisdiction." Heeding this questionable advice, the defendants neither appealed nor moved to set aside the judgment within one year as allowed under Florida law.

When defendants failed to satisfy the damage awards, plaintiffs sued the them in the Ontario courts in 1993 to enforce the Florida judgment. By the time of the hearing in 1998, the Florida judgment with interest had increased to about C$ 800,000. The Canadian trial judge dismissed the action for enforcement mainly on the ground that there had been fraud in the award of damages. The Ontario appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Canada in a 6 to 3 ruling, dismisses the defendants' appeal, ruling that the lower court should have enforced the Florida judgment.

In the majority's view, international comity and the growth of international cross-border transactions strongly suggest that the law of private international judgments needs updating...