Austin v. Liquid Distributors, Inc., 3D05-2106.
| Citation | 928 So.2d 521 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-2106.,3D05-2106. |
| Parties | Lucille AUSTIN, Appellant, v. LIQUID DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and Frank Cedeno, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stephens, Lynn, Klein and Marlene S. Reiss, Miami, for appellant.
Buckner, Shifrin, Rice & Etter and Charles W. Rice, Miami, for appellees.
Before SHEPHERD and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a personal injury case for fraud on the court. We affirm on the basis of the trial judge's order which correctly concludes as follows:
It is well-settled law that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding is not permitted to continue to employ the very institution she has subverted to achieve her ends. Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Where a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert the integrity of her action. When the extensive nature of the plaintiff's past medical history belies her claim that she had forgotten or was confused, she thereby forfeits her right to proceed with her personal injury action. Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Since the record evidence in the case at hand clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Lucille Austin deliberately attempted to mislead and deceive the defendants about matters which strike at the very heart of her claim, i.e., her injuries stemming from the automobile accident of June 28, 2001, this court simply cannot condone Lucille Austin's lack of candor. "A system that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible way." Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bologna v. Schlanger
...a party lies about matters bearing directly on the issue of damages, dismissal is an appropriate sanction. See Austin v. Liquid Distribs. Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Amato v. Intindola, 854 So.2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So.2d 572......
-
Martinez v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
...is not permitted to continue to employ the very institution she has subverted to achieve her ends.” Austin v. Liquid Distributors, Inc., 928 So.2d 521, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ). Accordingly, a trial court has the authority to ......
-
Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
...should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion’ ”). See also Austin v. Liquid Distrib., Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that when a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in......
-
Saewitz v. Saewitz
...it is true as well that counsel for the daughters was never affirmatively misled by the defense. Cf. Austin v. Liquid Distribs., Inc., 928 So.2d 521, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (upholding dismissal of personal injury case in finding the plaintiff committed fraud on the court by deliberately mis......