Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D16-4430. |
| Citation | 226 So.3d 1053 |
| Parties | Jamie LANDRY, Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE MOTOR CARS, LLC, and American States Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Zachary A. Harrington, Roger D. Mason, II, and Ashley V. Goodman of Roger D. Mason, II, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Sara Castro and David A. Holmes of Farr, Farr, Emerich, Hackett, Carr & Holmes, P.A., Punta Gorda, for Appellees.
Jamie Landry appeals the trial court's order that dismissed her action for alleged odometer fraud against Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, and American States Insurance Company (collectively, "the Dealership"), as a sanction for the asserted spoliation of the vehicle in question after it was repossessed. Because the Dealership failed to establish that the vehicle was lost, misplaced, or destroyed, we reverse.
In October 2013, Ms. Landry purchased a 2004 Dodge Durango from Charlotte Motor Cars. About six months later, Ms. Landry went to another car dealer to trade in the vehicle, and the other car dealer told Ms. Landry that there were odometer rollback issues with the vehicle. In late 2014, United Auto Credit repossessed the vehicle.2
On January 12, 2015, Ms. Landry filed her initial complaint against the Dealership. Over a year later, on or about May 17, 2016, the Dealership's attorneys sent a preservation letter and request to inspect the vehicle to Ms. Landry's attorneys, demanding that Ms. Landry preserve the vehicle and make it available for inspection. Ms. Landry responded through her attorneys, "[Ms. Landry] no longer has the vehicle and you know that she no longer has the vehicle, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this letter is." The Dealership's attorneys replied, A few days later, the Dealership filed its motion for sanctions, alleging that Ms. Landry had spoliated the vehicle.
On May 24, 2016, Ms. Landry filed an amended complaint, alleging various common law and statutory claims based on the alleged odometer fraud regarding the vehicle that Ms. Landry had purchased from Charlotte Motor Cars. The Dealership timely filed its response to the amended complaint and affirmative defenses. The trial court established August 29, 2016, as the deadline for the parties to complete discovery and set a three-day jury trial for the trial period beginning September 6, 2016.
On July 12, 2016, Ms. Landry filed a response and memorandum of law in opposition to the Dealership's motion for sanctions. In Ms. Landry's response to the motion for sanctions, Ms. Landry alleged that after another dealership told her about the odometer issues, she contacted Charlotte Motor Cars. According to Ms. Landry, Charlotte Motor Cars "told her that the odometer situation was her problem and refused to assist her in any way." Ms. Landry also stated that she submitted discovery to United Auto Credit in an attempt to locate the vehicle.
A hearing on the motion for sanctions was set for Monday, July 18, 2016. The hearing was not noticed as an evidentiary hearing. On the Friday before the Monday hearing, the Dealership filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion for sanctions, an affidavit from an "expert witness" in support of its motion, and a supplemental witness list in which it added the name of the "expert witness" who completed the affidavit. At the hearing, Ms. Landry's attorney objected to the late filing of the Dealership's memorandum of law. The parties did not introduce the Dealership's expert affidavit or any other exhibits into evidence or call any witnesses to testify. Ms. Landry's attorney informed the trial court that his client was still in the process of trying to locate the vehicle.
The trial court entered an order on July 21, 2016, granting the Dealership's motion for sanctions and dismissing the case. In its written order, the trial court found (1) that Ms. Landry does not have possession of the vehicle; (2) that she did not willfully dispose of the vehicle; (3) that she "had a duty to preserve the direct evidence in this case"; and (4) that the Dealership lacked the ability to defend itself without inspecting the vehicle. Ms. Landry filed a timely motion for rehearing, alleging that the vehicle still exists, has an active Florida title, and was then for sale at a car lot in Sanford, Florida. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
The Dealership raises a threshold issue, arguing the record is not adequate for appellate review because the trial court's order is not fundamentally erroneous on its face and Ms. Landry has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing or a statement of the evidence prepared in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4).3 For her part, Ms. Landry raises three points on appeal: (1) Ms. Landry did not "spoliate" the vehicle; (2) the trial court's order was facially deficient and absent a finding of bad faith, dismissal was too harsh a sanction; and (3) the order was premature in the absence of further discovery.4
Regarding the Dealership's threshold issue, it is clear from our record that the hearing was a nonevidentiary hearing at which the trial court considered only the parties' oral and written legal arguments; and neither party claim otherwise in their appellate briefs. This court does not require a transcript of a nonevidentiary hearing to determine whether the Dealership presented evidence sufficient to support its motion for sanctions for spoliation; and therefore, the Dealership's issue is without merit and does not warrant further discussion. See Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So.3d 351, 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (); see also Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So.3d 57, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We turn now to the three issues raised by Ms. Landry.
We review the trial court's order granting the Dealership's motion for sanctions and dismissing the case without prejudice for an abuse of discretion. See Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (). To the extent that the parties raise an issue that is a matter of law, we review the issue de novo. See Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So.3d 389, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
Ms. Landry argues that she did not spoliate the vehicle because (1) the vehicle still exists; (2) she did not have a duty to maintain possession of the vehicle; and (3) the vehicle was not crucial to any legitimate defense available to the Dealership. A two-part analysis is appropriate to a consideration of this argument: (A) whether Ms. Landry's loss of possession falls within the definition of "spoliation" or "lost" in the context of spoliation sanctions; and (B) whether spoliation sanctions were warranted under the threefold inquiry required for the imposition of spoliation sanctions.5 Specifically as to part (A), Ms. Landry argues that to meet the first part of the threefold inquiry for spoliation sanctions (i.e., the evidence existed at one time), the evidence must no longer exist or be unavailable to the party claiming spoliation. Further, Ms. Landry argues that the repossession does not mean that the vehicle was lost, misplaced, or destroyed; rather, it simply means that it is not in Ms. Landry's possession. Our resolution of part (A) of Ms. Landry's argument controls our disposition of this case.
Generally speaking, sanctions may be appropriate when a party has spoliated, lost, or misplaced evidence. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So.3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015). A determination that evidence has been spoliated does not inevitably lead to the imposition of sanctions under the threefold inquiry. Instead, the determination of whether evidence has been spoliated requires a different inquiry. Spoliation is defined as "[t]he destruction, or significant and meaningful alteration of [evidence]," Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V., 795 So.2d 164, 167 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 728 (5th ed. 1983)); or "the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending" or reasonably foreseeable litigation, id. (). See also Aldrich v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 737 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (similar definition); Spoliation , Black's Law Dictionary 1620 (10th ed. 2014) (defining spoliation as "[t]he intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence"). Evidence is deemed "lost" when it is "beyond the possession and custody of its owner and not locatable by diligent search." Lost , Black's Law Dictionary 1089 (10th ed. 2014).
Here, to support its contention that the vehicle was spoliated or lost, the Dealership relied on counsel's arguments and a fact conceded by Ms. Landry—that she no longer has possession of the vehicle because it was repossessed. Counsel's unsworn arguments for the Dealership do not constitute evidence. See Rowe v. Rodriguez–Schmidt, 89 So.3d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). And the Dealership did not present any testimony or evidence that the vehicle was spoliated or lost. Moreover, the repossession of the vehicle does not prove that the vehicle was destroyed or altered or that Ms. Landry failed to preserve the vehicle. Assuming that Ms. Landry had a duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akins v. Ben Milam Heat, Air & Elec., Inc.
...contested, as well as what evidence, if any, was spoliated, the latter issue must first be resolved." Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC , 226 So.3d 1053, 1056-1057 (Fla.App.Dist.2 2017).¶43 The critical time for determining a party's duty to preserve is not specifically addressed in Barne......
-
Wills v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
...(3) the evidence was critical to the moving party's ability to prove its prima facie case or a defense. Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, 226 So. 3d 1053, 1056 n.5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Further, forimposing sanctions of adverse jury instructions or dismissal, the movant must show evidence ......
-
Does a party to litigation have a common law duty to preserve evidence in Florida?
...preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending' or reasonably foreseeable litigation." Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, 226 So. 3d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). A question that comes up frequently wh......