SB 386                                          Second Engrossed
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       2014386e2
       
    1                        A bill to be entitled                      
    2         An act relating to the application of foreign law in
    3         courts; creating s. 61.040, F.S.; defining the term
    4         “strong public policy”; prohibiting a court from
    5         enforcing certain choice of law or forum selection
    6         contractual provisions; requiring a court to review
    7         judgments and orders of foreign courts for comity
    8         before enforcing such orders or judgments; specifying
    9         judgments and orders of foreign courts that are not
   10         entitled to comity; providing that the attempt to
   11         apply the law of a foreign country is void under
   12         certain circumstances; prohibiting a trial court from
   13         dismissing an action on the grounds that a
   14         satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in
   15         a foreign country; providing an exception; providing
   16         applicability; providing an effective date.
   17  
   18         WHEREAS, the purpose of the courts of this state is to
   19  fairly and justly adjudicate disputes, and
   20         WHEREAS, the common law and other court interpreted law of
   21  this state protects litigants from the application of unfair and
   22  unjust laws of foreign countries, and
   23         WHEREAS, with respect to the enforceability of choice of
   24  law provisions, this act codifies the holdings of Mintz & Fraade
   25  P.C., v. Beta Drywall Acquisition, LLC, 59 So.3d 1173, 1176
   26  (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Walls v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 824 So.2d
   27  1016, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA); and
   28         WHEREAS, with respect to the enforceability of forum
   29  selection clauses, this act codifies the holdings of Manrique v.
   30  Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla. 1986) and Illinois Union
   31  Insurance Co. v. Co-Free, Inc., 128 So.3d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA
   32  2013); and
   33         WHEREAS, with respect to the enforceability of a judgment
   34  or order of a court of a foreign country, this act codifies the
   35  holding of Nahar v. Nahar, 656 So.2d 225, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA
   36  1995); and
   37         WHEREAS, with respect to the application of the law of a
   38  foreign state, this act codifies McNamara v. McNamara, 40 So.3d
   39  78, 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); and
   40         WHEREAS, with respect to the dismissal of a case on the
   41  grounds that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently
   42  sought in a foreign country, this act codifies the result of
   43  Rule 1.061(a)(1), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, NOW,
   44  THEREFORE,
   45  
   46  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
   47  
   48         Section 1. Section 61.040, Florida Statutes, is created to
   49  read:
   50         61.040 Application of the law of a foreign country in
   51  courts relating to matters arising out of or relating to
   52  chapters 61 and 88.—
   53         (1) As used in this section, the term “strong public
   54  policy” means public policy of sufficient importance to outweigh
   55  the policy of protecting freedom of contract.
   56         (2) A court may not enforce:
   57         (a) A choice of law provision in a contract selecting the
   58  law of a foreign country which contravenes the strong public
   59  policy of this state or that is unjust or unreasonable.
   60         (b) A forum selection clause in a contract that selects a
   61  forum in a foreign country if the clause is shown to be
   62  unreasonable or unjust or if strong public policy would prohibit
   63  the enforceability of the clause under the specific facts of the
   64  case.
   65         (3) Before enforcing a judgment or order of a court of a
   66  foreign country, a court must review the judgment or order to
   67  ensure that it complies with the rule of comity. A judgment or
   68  order of a court of a foreign country is not entitled to comity
   69  if the parties were not given adequate notice and the
   70  opportunity to be heard, the foreign court did not have
   71  jurisdiction, or the judgment or order of the foreign court
   72  offends the public policy of this state. As used in this
   73  subsection, a “foreign court” or “court of a foreign country”
   74  includes any court or tribunal that has jurisdiction under the
   75  laws of that nation over the subject of matters governed by
   76  chapter 61 or chapter 88.
   77         (4) Any attempt to apply the law of a foreign country is
   78  void if it contravenes the strong public policy of this state or
   79  if the law is unjust or unreasonable.
   80         (5) A trial court may not dismiss an action on the grounds
   81  that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a
   82  foreign country unless the trial court finds in accordance with
   83  all the applicable rules of civil procedure and this section
   84  that an adequate alternate forum exists.
   85         (6) This section applies only to matters governed by or
   86  relating to chapter 61 or chapter 88.
   87  
   88  The purpose of this section is to codify existing case law, and
   89  that intent should guide the interpretation of this section.
   90         Section 2. This act shall take effect on October 1, 2014.