Commonwealth Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Tubero
| Decision Date | 15 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 75370,75370 |
| Citation | 569 So.2d 1271 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S595 COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Moshe TUBERO, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert S. Hackleman and Connis O. Brown, III of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Thomas James O'Grady, Boca Raton, for respondent.
We review Tubero v. Chapnich, 552 So.2d 932, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the district court of appeal certified the following as a question of great public interest:
Is an express written finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order to comply with discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 necessary to sustain the severe sanctions of dismissal or default against a noncomplying plaintiff or defendant?
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Moshe Tubero filed suit against Commonwealth Savings and Loan Association and others on November 16, 1987. On January 21, 1988, Commonwealth filed a request for production of documents and interrogatories, all of which were to be answered by February 20, 1988. On February 17, 1988, Tubero's lawyer filed a motion to withdraw premised upon lack of cooperation and irreconcilable differences between him and his client. He set the motion for hearing on March 24, 1988. The motion and notice of hearing reflect service upon the opposing attorneys but not on Tubero. The record contains no indication that this hearing ever took place.
On March 8, 1988, Commonwealth filed a motion to compel discovery and for entry of an ex parte order. The motion alleged that Tubero had not responded to its requested discovery and had neither objected to the discovery nor requested an extension of time. Pursuant to local administrative rules, this motion was submitted to the court without a hearing and resulted in an order entered on the same date which required compliance with the discovery requests within ten days. When the discovery was not forthcoming, Commonwealth filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions on March 22, 1988, and set the motion for hearing on April 5, 1988. On that date, the court entered an order stating that Commonwealth's motion was "granted for Plaintiff's failure to comply with this court's Order of March 8, 1988, and Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed."
The district court of appeal observed that the record contained no showing that Tubero had attempted to comply with the order or communicate any excuse for noncompliance to the court by the time of the hearing at which the complaint was dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that "these facts might support a finding of willful disregard of the orders of the court." However, the court was concerned with the absence of an express finding that Tubero had willfully disregarded the rulings of the trial judge. Relying upon several of its previous decisions, the district court of appeal held "that an order granting a dismissal or default under rule 1.380 for failure to provide discovery must make an express written finding that appellant's conduct was a willful or deliberate violation of the discovery orders." 552 So.2d at 935. Therefore, the court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the sanctions in order to determine whether there was a deliberate or willful disregard of the discovery order.
In Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983), this Court considered the circumstances under which a trial judge was authorized to strike pleadings or enter a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery. While noting that because of the severity of such a sanction it should only be employed in extreme circumstances, we said:
A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, Swindle v. Reid, 242 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness, Herold v. Computer Components International, Inc., 252 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
In Mercer, we did not specifically hold that the trial court's order must contain an express finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order to comply with discovery. However, in affirming the order striking the answer, we noted that the trial court had found that the defendant's actions amounted to willful disregard. In this manner, we distinguished Santuoso v. McGrath & Associates, Inc., 385 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), disapproved, Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983), the case upon which conflict was based, by pointing out that the order entering default had not recited that Santuoso's failure to submit to discovery was willful.
In a series of cases, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has construed Mercer to require that an order imposing sanctions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 must recite a party's willful failure to submit to discovery. In re Forfeiture of Twenty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engle v. Engle
...because it lacked "a finding which indicates that the party's conduct was willful or deliberate" (citing Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) )). Moreover, even in family law proceedings, Florida courts routinely correct other errors that are apparent o......
-
Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co.
...that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making such a ruling and entering a default. Commonwealth Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990). A finding that a party has acted with a deliberate and contumacious disregard of a trial court's order justifi......
-
Arango v. Alvarez
..."that the conduct upon which the order is based was equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard." Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990); Thermal Dynamics. The record in this case does not demonstrate such willfulness or deliberate disregard, an......
-
Mathis v. Florida Dept. of Corrections
...complying even with court orders essential to a fair hearing is rarely enough to justify dismissal. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1990). We have discovered, moreover, no statute or rule authorizing PERC to deny the petition for issuance of a......
-
Trial and evidence
...status conference without making explicit finding that failure to attend was willful); Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (it is for very reason that trial judge is granted so much discretion to impose this severe sanction that subject order should c......
-
Emergencies and case management conference
...when hearing was noticed as status conference violated wife’s due process rights); Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (because trial judge is granted so much discretion to impose severe sanctions, order should contain explicit finding of willful nonc......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...make discovery in family law matters and related sanctions. [Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.380; Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)(express written finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey court order to comply with discovery is necessary to sustain s......
-
Review of orders dismissing or defaulting for discovery violations: the evolution of the abuse of discretion standard.
...Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2). (6) Mercer, 443 So. 2d at 946. (7) Id. (citations omitted). (8) Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1990). (9) See, e.g., DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2008); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v......