Can You Challenge a Domesticated Judgment in Florida? What Tarnow v. Watson Means in 2026

Summary: Yes. A judgment debtor may be able to challenge a domesticated sister-state judgment in Florida even after the 30-day period in §55.509 has passed. In Tarnow v. Watson, Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the requirements for obtaining an automatic stay of enforcement are not conditions for maintaining the underlying challenge. The decision does not mean every late challenge succeeds, and it does not automatically stop collection while the challenge is pending.

Key Takeaways:

• The 30-day rule is not a blanket deadline for every challenge: Section 55.509 sets conditions for an automatic stay of enforcement. Tarnow says failure to satisfy those conditions does not, by itself, eliminate the right to maintain a challenge.
• A challenge and a stay are different remedies: A debtor may be able to attack the validity of the domesticated judgment while enforcement continues unless a stay is separately obtained.
• Tarnow involved a New York judgment recorded in Florida: The case concerns the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, not Florida’s separate law for foreign-country money judgments.
• The Sixth DCA did not decide whether Tarnow’s substantive defenses were valid: It reversed because the trial court dismissed the case based solely on failure to satisfy §55.509’s stay conditions.
• Creditors should not assume the end of 30 days eliminates litigation risk: The 30-day period matters greatly for enforcement and stay strategy, but it is not a universal cutoff for all collateral challenges.

What Did Tarnow v. Watson Actually Decide?

A domesticated judgment can be challenged without first satisfying the conditions for an automatic stay under Florida Statute §55.509. That is the central holding of Tarnow v. Watson, Case Nos. 6D2024-1853 and 6D2024-2812, decided by Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal on June 19, 2026.

The judgment at issue was a New York judgment recorded in Collier County under the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, commonly called FEFJA. The debtor filed a Florida action attacking the judgment and also sought to stop enforcement. 

The trial court dismissed the action because the debtor had not complied with §55.509. The Sixth DCA reversed, explaining that the statutory conditions for staying enforcement do not determine whether the debtor may maintain the underlying challenge.

That point is narrower than saying the debtor won. The appellate court did not decide whether the asserted fraud or other challenges were legally sufficient. It decided that the case could not be dismissed merely because the debtor failed to satisfy the statutory stay requirements.

Why the 30-Day Period Creates Confusion

Florida’s sister-state judgment statute uses several different 30-day rules, and treating them as one universal deadline can produce the wrong legal conclusion.

Under §55.505, the enforcement process cannot issue until 30 days after the clerk mails notice of the recording. Separately, §55.509(1) provides an automatic stay when, within 30 days after recording, the judgment debtor files an action contesting jurisdiction or validity and records a lis pendens directed toward the judgment.

Those provisions are important, but Tarnow says they should not be read as creating a 30-day statute of limitations on every challenge to a domesticated judgment.

Under Florida’s process for domesticating an out-of-state judgment in Florida, recording, notice, the 30-day waiting period, lien timing, and stay requirements operate as separate parts of FEFJA. Keeping those rules separate is especially important after Tarnow.

What Is the Difference Between Challenging the Judgment and Staying Enforcement?

A challenge asks whether the domesticated judgment should remain enforceable. A stay asks whether collection activity should be paused while that challenge is being litigated.

Those questions can exist at the same time, but they are not the same procedural request.

A debtor who files within the §55.509(1) window and satisfies the statute’s conditions may obtain the automatic stay described there. A debtor who does not satisfy those conditions may still have a challenge, but the filing of that challenge does not necessarily stop enforcement.

That distinction creates practical consequences for both sides. A creditor may continue to pursue available enforcement unless a stay applies. A debtor may need to address the judgment challenge and the immediate enforcement risk as separate problems.

What Does Section 55.509 Require for the Automatic Stay?

Section 55.509(1) applies when, within 30 days after the foreign judgment is recorded, the judgment debtor:

• files an action contesting the jurisdiction of the court that entered the judgment or the validity of the judgment; and
• records a lis pendens directed toward the foreign judgment.

When those conditions are met, the statute says the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment and the judgment lien upon filing of the action.

Section 55.509(2) provides another route when the debtor shows a ground on which enforcement of a Florida circuit or county court judgment would be stayed. In that situation, the court may require the same security that would be required for a Florida judgment.

Tarnow does not erase these requirements. It separates them from the separate question of whether the debtor may keep litigating a challenge.

What Happened in Tarnow v. Watson?

A New York jury found Herman Tarnow liable for damages arising from the wrongful termination of a former employee. After the employee’s death, her estate obtained a judgment with a face amount of $352,817.97. The estate’s personal representative recorded the New York judgment in Collier County, where Tarnow lived.

Tarnow then filed an action challenging the judgment on several grounds, including extrinsic fraud. He also sought immediate and permanent relief against enforcement.

The trial court concluded that Tarnow had not complied with §55.509 and dismissed his complaint, eventually with prejudice. The Sixth DCA reversed. Its reasoning focused on the statutory structure: the ability to challenge the judgment is not conditioned on satisfying the requirements for a stay.

The appellate court also relied on earlier Florida authority recognizing that a collateral attack brought after the 30-day automatic-stay period does not automatically become barred. The consequence is different: enforcement may continue unless the debtor obtains a stay through an available route.

What Tarnow Does Not Mean

Tarnow should not be read as a general invitation to relitigate an out-of-state case in Florida.

FEFJA gives a properly recorded sister-state judgment the same effect and procedural status as a Florida circuit or county court judgment. Full faith and credit also limits the extent to which Florida can revisit matters that were already decided by a court with proper jurisdiction.

A debtor therefore needs an actual legal basis for the attack. Saying the original court was wrong, the damages were too high, or the evidence should have been weighed differently is not automatically a basis to undo a domesticated judgment.

Tarnow also did not decide whether the debtor in that case had properly pleaded extrinsic fraud or whether his other substantive theories would succeed. The Sixth DCA expressly left those issues for further proceedings.

Can a Creditor Still Enforce the Judgment While It Is Being Challenged?

Potentially, yes. That is one of the most important consequences of Tarnow.

If the debtor has not obtained an automatic or court-ordered stay, a pending challenge does not necessarily stop enforcement. A creditor may still be able to pursue remedies available on a Florida judgment while the challenge proceeds.

That is why the practical question for a creditor is not only, “Has the debtor filed something?” It is also, “Has enforcement actually been stayed?”

For debtors, the reverse is equally important. Filing a challenge does not itself guarantee that bank accounts, liens, or other collection measures will be frozen while the court considers the attack.

What Should a Judgment Creditor Check After Receiving a Challenge?

A creditor should identify exactly what the debtor filed and what relief was actually granted. The following questions matter immediately:

• Was the challenge filed within 30 days after recording?
• Was a lis pendens recorded as §55.509(1) requires for the automatic stay?
• Has the court entered any separate stay order?
• What ground is the debtor using to attack jurisdiction or validity?
• Is the debtor trying to relitigate the merits rather than raise a recognized challenge?
• What enforcement steps are already available or underway?
• Is there a bond or other security issue under §55.509(2)?
• Does the challenge affect a judgment lien, garnishment, levy, or other collection measure already in progress?

After domestication, Florida foreign judgment enforcement can move into collection against reachable assets, including liens, garnishment, levy, or other available procedures. If the debtor has filed a challenge, the immediate question is whether any of those enforcement measures have actually been stayed.

What Should a Judgment Debtor Check Before Filing?

A debtor should not assume that “30 days passed” means there is no possible challenge. Tarnow rejects that as a categorical rule. But the debtor also should not assume that a later challenge will stop collection.

Before filing, the review should identify:

• the court and state that entered the original judgment;
• whether the original court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction;
• how and when the judgment was recorded in Florida;
• when statutory notice was mailed;
• whether a stay is still available under §55.509 or another rule;
• the exact legal basis for attacking the judgment;
• whether enforcement activity has already started; and
• what property or accounts may be exposed while the challenge is pending.

The timing of those issues can affect the practical value of the challenge even when the right to maintain it has not disappeared.

Does Tarnow Apply to Foreign-Country Judgments?

Not directly.

Tarnow involved a New York judgment, so it was governed by FEFJA, §§55.501–55.509. Under that Act, “foreign judgment” refers to qualifying judgments from another U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, or qualifying U.S. court.

A judgment from France, Canada, Germany, Colombia, England, or another country instead follows Florida’s separate process for domestication of foreign-country money judgments under §§55.601–55.607.

Keeping those two regimes separate is essential. The same phrase, “foreign judgment,” can refer to very different statutory procedures depending on whether the judgment came from another U.S. jurisdiction or from another country.

What Tarnow Changes for Florida Judgment Strategy in 2026

For creditors, Tarnow removes a dangerous assumption: the expiration of the §55.509(1) 30-day period does not necessarily eliminate every later challenge. Enforcement planning should therefore account for the possibility that a debtor may attack validity or jurisdiction after the automatic-stay window has closed.

For debtors, the case confirms that missing the automatic-stay conditions does not, by itself, end the ability to challenge the domesticated judgment. It may, however, leave the judgment enforceable while the challenge is being litigated.

That makes timing more important, not less. The earlier both sides identify the distinction between the challenge and the stay, the easier it is to evaluate collection exposure, possible security, and the procedural steps that actually matter.

When a Florida Challenge Is Ready for Legal Review

A useful legal review starts with the documents and dates, not a general description of the dispute. Be prepared to provide:

• the domesticated judgment;
• the original out-of-state judgment;
• the date it was recorded in Florida;
• the clerk’s notice of recording;
• any action attacking the judgment;
• any lis pendens;
• any motion or order concerning a stay;
• documents relating to the claimed jurisdictional or validity defect; and
• information about active or threatened enforcement.

Boyer Law Firm can evaluate whether the dispute concerns the validity of a sister-state judgment, the availability of a stay, or the enforcement measures that may continue while the challenge is pending. Francis M. Boyer is Board Certified in International Law by The Florida Bar, and the firm handles interstate and cross-border judgment matters where the procedural route can determine what happens next.

Speak With Boyer Law Firm About a Domesticated Judgment in Florida

If an out-of-state judgment has been recorded in Florida and a challenge has been filed or is being considered, the first issue is not simply whether 30 days have passed. The more useful questions are what is being challenged, whether enforcement has been stayed, and what can happen while the court considers the dispute.

Boyer Law Firm can review the original judgment, the Florida recording, the notice dates, the asserted challenge, and any current enforcement activity to identify which issues need immediate attention. Schedule a consultation with our office today.

FAQs About Challenging a Domesticated Judgment in Florida

Can you challenge a domesticated judgment in Florida after 30 days?

Potentially. Tarnow v. Watson holds that a debtor’s ability to maintain a challenge is not conditioned on satisfying §55.509’s requirements for an automatic stay. Missing that 30-day stay window does not automatically bar every later challenge. The challenge still needs a legally valid basis, and enforcement may continue unless a separate stay applies.

Does filing a challenge automatically stop enforcement?

No. Tarnow emphasizes the difference between attacking a domesticated judgment and staying its enforcement. A debtor who does not satisfy the automatic-stay requirements may still challenge the judgment, but the creditor may be able to continue collection unless the court enters another stay or a different stay provision applies.

What did the Sixth DCA decide about extrinsic fraud in Tarnow?

It did not decide whether Tarnow’s extrinsic-fraud allegations were sufficient or whether that defense would ultimately succeed. The court addressed only the dismissal based on §55.509. It reversed because failure to satisfy the stay conditions was not a proper reason, by itself, to prevent Tarnow from maintaining the challenge.

Does Tarnow apply to judgments from other countries?

No, not directly. Tarnow concerned a New York judgment domesticated under Florida’s sister-state statute, FEFJA. Foreign-country money judgments are governed by a different Florida Act, §§55.601–55.607. The correct framework depends on where the original judgment was entered.

What should a creditor do if a debtor challenges a domesticated judgment?

First determine whether any stay is actually in effect. Then review the legal basis for the challenge, the timing, any lis pendens, existing liens or enforcement measures, and whether security has been ordered. A filed challenge and a stayed judgment are not automatically the same thing after Tarnow.

About the Author