to any out-of-country foreign judgment that is final and conclusive and enforceable where rendered, even though an appeal therefrom is pending or is subject to appeal,” indicates that the Act was applicable in this case at the time Garnac filed its complaint and when the Olivareses filed their motion to dismiss, as the Venezuelan trial court had already rendered its final decision rejecting Garnac’s claims. Moreover, where, as here, the basis for res judicata or collateral estoppel does not appear on the face of the complaint, those grounds cannot be determined by way of a motion to dismiss. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (listing res judicata and collateral estoppel as affirmative defenses); Norwich v. Global Fin. Assocs., LLC, 882 So.2d 535, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); Palmer v. McCallion, 645 So.2d 131, 133 (Fla.
holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding wjhile the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel may be resolved through a motion for summary judgment the trial court erred when it ventured outside the four corners of the complaint took judicial notice of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and dismissed the complaint with prejudice holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion holding that a court may not take judicial notice of separate legal proceedings on a motion to dismiss and defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel must be resolved through motion for summary judgment holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant