Kornblum v. Schneider, 91-2662
| Citation | 609 So.2d 138 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2662,91-2662 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2687 Ilene Sales KORNBLUM, Appellant, v. Irving S. SCHNEIDER and Ronald B. Maged, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
We grant the motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion for the opinion filed October 14, 1992.
As a sanction for conduct which the trial judge perceived to be a fraud on the court by appellant, 1 her personal injury complaint was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant. We reverse.
The trial court has the inherent authority, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when the plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, 2 or where a party, 3 or the party's counsel, 4 persistently fails or refuses to comply with court orders. Because dismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions, it should be employed only in extreme circumstances. 5 In some cases, where the misconduct of a party or the party's counsel has permeated the entire proceeding, dismissal of the entire case has been upheld, 6 but in others where the fraud or other misconduct pertained to only a part of the claim, dismissal of the unaffected legitimate part of the claim has been held to be too severe. 7
In this case the record does not establish that appellant either authorized or had any prior knowledge of her counsel's inclusion in the complaint of the offending allegations and claim. 8 Furthermore, the separate count on behalf of appellant's husband had been voluntarily dismissed, and attorney's fees had been awarded to appellees' trial counsel. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant's claim for her own personal injuries.
The judgment and the order dismissing appellant's complaint are severally reversed.
1 The fraud consisted of a separate count on behalf of appellant's husband, seeking damages for his alleged permanent injuries, which the court knew to be contrary to the husband's prior sworn testimony before the court.
7 See,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanono v. Murphy
...misconduct and "an obvious affront to the administration of justice"), review denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(trial court has inherent authority to dismiss entire action for fraud which permeates the proceedings); Horjales v. Loeb, ......
-
Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani
...3d DCA 1996); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994),review denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1995); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Fagan v. Powell, 237 So.2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Fair v. T......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 98-2055.
...3d DCA 1996); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So.2d 550, 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla.1995); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Fair v. Tampa Elec. Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514 (1946); Fagan ......
-
Herman v. Intracoastal Cardiology Ctr.
...sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when the plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court . . . ." Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). As such, "[w]e review orders dismissing complaints for fraud upon the court to determine if there has been an abus......
-
Fraud on the court as a basis for dismissal with prejudice or default: an old remedy has new teeth.
...when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Note that the evidence necessary to support a finding of fraud on the court must be "clear and convincing," a higher b......
-
The "big lie".
...v. Shapiro Express Co., 102 F.R.D. 564, 569-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). As a general rule, a litigant is deemed to have perpetrated a fraud on the court when "it can be demonstrated, clearly ......