Mittleman v. Rowe Intern., Inc., 4-86-1487

• Decision Date: 02 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 4-86-1487,4-86-1487
• Citation: 511 So.2d 766,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2112
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2112 Barbara and John Jay MITTLEMAN, Appellants, v. ROWE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 766

511 So.2d 766

12 Fla. L. Weekly 2112

Barbara and John Jay MITTLEMAN, Appellants, v.ROWE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 4-86-1487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Sept. 2, 1987.

Richard L. Larin and John B. Agnetti of Hoffman, Larin & Feinsmith, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Perry Z. Binder of Britton, Schantz & Schatzman, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Barbara Mittleman, appeals the lower court's order striking her pleadings and those of her co-defendant husband as sanctions for discovery violations, and the resultant default judgment entered against both defendants.

The action was brought by Rowe International against appellantBarbara Mittleman and her husband for nonpayment and for replevin of property leased to Uneedus Vending and Amusement Corporation.Appellant asserted by way of affirmative defense that she was never involved in the corporation as an officer, director, stockholder or employee, nor did she represent herself as such to Rowe.She further asserted that the operation of the business was the responsibility of the defendantJohn Mittleman, with whom she was involved in a protracted dissolution of marriage proceeding, and she had neither knowledge of the company's operation nor access to the information requested by plaintiff.Appellant's motion to dismiss the action as to her was denied by the trial court and discovery continued.Citing failure to obey an earlier court order compelling discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, which the lower court granted, striking the defendants' pleadings and thereafter entering a default judgment against both appellant and her husband.Appellant seeks reversal of these orders as to her.Finding an abuse of discretion, we reverse.

In order to ensure compliance, a trial court has authority to impose sanctions against a party for failure to comply with an order compelling discovery under rule 1.380,Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.Before granting a motion for contempt for such failure to comply, there must be a finding that the party has willfully ignored an order of the court.This can be established by showing that there has been either a calculated effort to conceal or a conscious design to deceive the court.Allstate Insurance Company v. Biddy, 392 So.2d 938(Fla. 2d DCA1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1140(Fla.1981).A default judgment should be entered only in the most extreme circumstances, Garden-Aire Village Sea Haven v. Decker, 433 So.2d 676(Fla. 4th DCA1983), where there has been a "deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority,"Swindle v. Reid, 242 So.2d 751(Fla. 4th DCA1970), or where the violation has been committed with a "willful disregard of or gross indifference to an order of the...