Carmen Felicita Arrieta-Gimenez, Etc. v. Alberto Arrieta-Negron , 896 F.2d 16 ( 1990 )

896 F.2d 16

Carmen Felicita ARRIETA-GIMENEZ, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Alberto ARRIETA-NEGRON, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 88-1085.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Feb. 28, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; Jose Antonio Fuste, District Judge.

Ivan Diaz de Aldrey, for appellant Conjugal Partnership.

Blas C. Herrero, Jr., for appellant Carmen Felicita Arrieta-Gimenez.

Earl D. Waldin, Jr., Miami, Florida issues, and Stanley L. Feldstein, Old San Juan, Puerto Rico issues, with whom Kelley Drye & Warren, Smathers & Thompson, Miami, Edward A. Godoy and Feldstein, Gelpi, Hernandez & Gotay, Old San Juan, were on brief, for appellees.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The factual and procedural background of this case was set forth in detail in our earlier opinion, Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 59 F.2d 1033, 1035-36 (1st Cir.1988). As explained therein, we found, after briefing and oral argument, that the case "depend[ed] upon [unsettled] questions of Florida law, "id. at 1042. Accordingly, we certified certain questions to the Florida Supreme Court for resolution. Id. at 1042-43.

2

We are now in receipt of a meticulously crafted opinion of that tribunal. Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1989). There, the Florida Supreme Court stated unequivocally that it would give res judicata effect to a consent judgment approving a property settlement, notwithstanding that, more than one year after entry of the judgment, one party discovered that another party had fraudulently misrepresented, or concealed, information material to the settlement.

3

We originally advised the parties and the state supreme court that, "if the consent judgment has binding preclusive effect, plaintiff will not be able to proceed [with the instant action]." Arrieta-Gimenez, 859 F.2d at 1041. That is, of course, the precise purport and effect of the state court's opinion. We need go no further.

4

We summarily affirm the grant of summary judgment below because it clearly appears, at this point in the proceedings, that no substantial question remains. 1st Cir.Loc.R. 27.1.

5

Affirmed.