Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; May 31, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
A dispute arose between Joseph J. Rash and Joann H. Rash regarding the priority of two competing divorce judgments from Florida and New Jersey. The husband filed for divorce in Florida on February 25, 1994, with the wife being served on March 14 but not appearing in court. Subsequently, on March 21, the wife initiated divorce proceedings in New Jersey and sought an emergency order to restrain the husband from continuing in Florida. The New Jersey court held a hearing on March 29, where it found that the husband was subject to its jurisdiction and issued a temporary injunction preventing him from proceeding with the Florida case.
Despite this injunction, the husband sought permission to continue in Florida, which was granted, leading to a final judgment of divorce issued on October 21, 1994, by the Florida court. The judgment included provisions for property division and denied the wife alimony. The wife later petitioned the New Jersey court to hold the sale proceeds of New Jersey real estate in escrow and to hold the husband in contempt for violating the injunction. On December 14, 1994, the New Jersey court ruled that Florida had incorrectly asserted jurisdiction over the wife and declared New Jersey as the proper forum for resolving property and support issues.
On December 19, the husband submitted an answer and counterclaim in a New Jersey divorce case. On June 19, 1995, the New Jersey court issued a "Final Judgment of Divorce," confirming jurisdiction over the husband due to the wife's residency in New Jersey for over a year. The court divided real property in New Jersey and a trailer in Florida, awarding the wife alimony, half of the husband's Social Security payments, and half of his disability pension. On March 18, 1996, the court directed the distribution of 50% of the husband's pension to the wife as per the divorce judgment.
Subsequently, the husband filed a suit on May 31, 1996, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeking validation of a Florida judgment that dissolved the marriage and divided property, challenging the New Jersey judgment. The wife moved to dismiss, and the district court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, citing the traditional state control over domestic relations cases. The court also ruled that the Florida judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit due to the New Jersey court's earlier finding of a lack of personal jurisdiction over the wife in Florida.
The husband appealed, and in Rash v. Rash, the Eleventh Circuit initially ruled in favor of the wife, asserting Florida's obligation to recognize the New Jersey order from March 31, 1994. Upon reconsideration, the court affirmed that Florida must give full faith and credit to the New Jersey judgment from June 19, 1995. The husband sought to file a late petition for rehearing, prompting the court to examine whether the New Jersey order warranted full faith and credit under New Jersey law.
The court clarified that while diversity jurisdiction typically excludes domestic relations cases, this case primarily concerns asset disputes related to alimony and pensions, rather than domestic issues. The court concluded that the matter involves the interests of both states and their judicial systems concerning the enforcement of competing state decrees, thus not falling under the domestic relations exception.
District courts are required to enforce divorce decrees from other states under the full faith and credit clause, as established in *Williams v. North Carolina*. Federal courts may consider claims regarding a state's failure to give proper full faith and credit to another state's judgment, but this does not convert the federal court into a probate and divorce court.
The March 31 order from New Jersey was found to lack the finality required for full faith and credit because local law dictates that a judgment is not considered final if further action by the rendering court is necessary. A second court may refuse to honor a judgment if it is subject to modification. New Jersey courts have held that full faith and credit extends only to final judgments, not to ancillary processes or execution orders, as noted in *Paramore v. Paramore*.
In *Frank v. Frank*, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a Florida decree was not entitled to full faith and credit because it was modifiable and not a final judgment. Applying New Jersey law to the May 31 order indicates it was merely an interlocutory order pending a final jurisdiction determination, thus not qualifying for full faith and credit.
The final judgment in New Jersey on June 19, 1995, alongside the earlier Florida judgment, establishes that a party who litigates jurisdiction and is heard is bound by the court’s judgment. The New Jersey court was the only one to address jurisdiction with both parties present, determining that New Jersey was the proper jurisdiction.
The husband claims that a Florida judgment should take precedence because it was rendered first and the Florida court had personal jurisdiction over the wife, as per Fla. Stat. Ann. 48.193(1)(e). However, the wife did not appear in the Florida case and was in default, which allows her to contest the validity of the default judgment on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, even if the Florida court believed it had jurisdiction. The New Jersey court, where both parties participated, had the authority to review the Florida court's jurisdictional decision. It ruled that the Florida court lacked jurisdiction, rendering the New Jersey judgment controlling and entitled to full faith and credit. Consequently, the Florida judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit due to the New Jersey court's determination. The husband could have challenged the New Jersey court's jurisdiction ruling in New Jersey itself. The previous opinion of the court has been vacated, and the district court's judgment has been affirmed. The husband retains the option to file for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Judge Barkett concurs, emphasizing that the New Jersey court was the first competent jurisdiction to rule on the matter and that Ms. Rash, having not appeared in Florida, could contest the judgment there. The principles established in case law support the New Jersey court's ruling and the invalidity of the Florida judgment's enforcement.
