Parham v. Kohler, 61-166
| Decision Date | 09 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-166,61-166 |
| Citation | 134 So.2d 274 |
| Parties | Glenna PARHAM and Richard Parham, individually, and as husband of Glenna Parham, Appellants, v. Beatrice KOHLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Simons & Simons, Miami, for appellants.
Carey, Goodman, Terry, Dwyer & Austin, Miami, and Joseph A. McGowan, Gainesville, for appellee.
Before HORTON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal from final orders of dismissal which were entered against each of the appellants. The action is brought by the appellants to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the negligence of the appellee which caused an automobile accident between the parties. The complaint reads in part as follows:
'Come Now the Plaintiff, Glenna Parham and Richard Parham, individually, and as husband of Glenna Parham, and brings this Complaint against the Defendant, Beatrice Kohler, alleging as follows:'
The allegations of the complaint are then divided into three separate claims representing the individual claim of Glenna Parham, the individual claim of Richard Parham and the derivative claim of Richard Parham as husband of Glenna Parham, respectively.
Appellee, by her answer, denied negligence on her part and set up the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. During the course of discovery proceedings, the appellants stated, under oath, in answer to interrogatories that they were married and gave the date and place of marriage. Subsequently, the cause came on for trial and the appellant, Glenna Parham, was examined and testified as to the details of the accident. Upon cross-examination she reiterated that she was married to the appellant, Richard Parham. After further questioning, it was elicited that she had not married Richard Parham and was still married to one, Michael Stella, whom she married in 1939.
By reason of the above, the court granted appellee's motion to dismiss the cause as to the appellant, Glenna Parham, with prejudice. This motion was predicated upon the obvious falsity in the statements of Glenna Parham while under oath, as to her marital status. Thereafter, the appellant, Richard Parham, was questioned by the court and after he admitted he was not married to Glenna Parham, the court dismissed the cause as to him with prejudice. It is from these orders that this appeal is prosecuted.
The sole question on appeal is whether the trial judge had the power to dismiss the action with prejudice by reason of the perjured testimony as to the marital status of the appellants. Appellants contend that while the trial judge has the discretion and inherent power to control the sanctity of the proceedings, he cannot dismiss the instant cause with prejudice where there has been no adjudication on the merits.
It is fundamental that the success of our entire judicial system is dependent in no small way, on the proper sanctions being at the disposal of the judiciary so that they may deal with perjured testimony. Otherwise, there would be no effective deterrent to future witnesses and parties who have any ideas about falsifying their testimony. However, the law has provided the courts with definite alternatives when, as in the case at bar, they clearly establish that perjured testimony has been given. Among other things, the court may cite the person for contempt, direct that the record be sent to the State Attorney's office for investigation or, in proper cases, strike the pleading or testimony which has clearly been shown to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc., 2D07-567.
...case. See Howard, 959 So.2d at 314; Laschke, 872 So.2d at 345-46; Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Parham v. Kohler, 134 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Here, the record unequivocally supports the trial court's determination that Mr. Ramey provided intentionally false depo......
-
Harris v. Cuyler
...the courts have been unwilling to dismiss with prejudice. Russell v. Casebolt, 384 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Mo.1964); Parham v. Kohler, 134 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla.App.1961).5 The statute governing court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants provides, in part:If at any time after the appointment of......
-
Whiteside v. Whiteside
...that instead of denying the defendant her right to trial, the court could have found her in contempt. Similarly, in Parham v. Kohler, 134 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), the appellate court found dismissal of the action to have been improper, but stated that the trial court could have cited t......
-
Yarbro v. State
...Henderson, and in lieu of punishment for contempt, advised the state attorney of the perjury that had taken place. In Parham v. Kohler, 134 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), the court also speaks of "alternatives" However, the law has provided the courts with definite alternatives when, as in t......
-
A serious penalty for perjury.
...a portion of a claim, dismissal of the unaffected claim may be too severe a sanction.[13] For example, in the case of Parham v. Kohler, 134 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), the personal injury plaintiff lied about the existence of a marriage in order to create a consortium claim for the putat......