Regal Marble, Inc. v. Drexel Investments, Inc., 89-0064
| Decision Date | 26 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-0064,89-0064 |
| Citation | 568 So.2d 1281 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2409, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2879 REGAL MARBLE, INC., a Florida corporation, Irving Walder and David Sarkell, Appellants, v. DREXEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, a/k/a Drexel Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, Darby and Way, Inc., a Florida corporation, Josias and Goren, a Florida partnership of attorneys, James A. Cherof, individually and as a partner of Josias and Goren, Gregory Darby, individually, Joseph Kolb, individually, and Harry W. Thompson, individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, and John Beranek formerly of Klein, Beranek & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach and now of Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Gary M. Farmer of Gary M. Farmer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Drexel Properties, Inc. and Joseph Kolb, and Drexel Investments, Inc.
William C. Davell of Rogers, Morris & Ziegler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Gregory W. Darby, Harry W. Thompson, and Darby and Way, Inc.
Paul R. Regensdorf of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Josias and Goren and James Cherof.
We affirm a summary judgment for the defendants in a tort action for fraud and conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege damages arising out of the introduction of a false exhibit in a prior eviction action. 1 Plaintiffs contend the preparation and use of an incorrect sketch in that case was deliberate. For the purpose of this appeal, those allegations are taken as true.
There is no cause of action recognized in this state for false statements made in prior judicial proceedings. E.g., Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357 (1907). We repeat the clear reasoning of the trial court, with which we concur, applying that principle to the appellants' claims:
Defendants all argue that the amended complaint is capable of but one interpretation, and that is that plaintiffs seek damages for perjury committed in the prior tenant eviction trial.... Courts should be concerned with the substance of pleadings and not the labels which the parties place on them. The actual allegations of the amended complaint show that the only fraud complained of is the alleged use of an "intentionally false" survey and allegedly false testimony ... supporting the survey, as well as alleged later attempts of the defendants to conceal or "cover up" the falsity. Because perjury consists of knowingly giving false testimony or evidence under oath, it is difficult to construe plaintiffs' pleading in any way other than as argued by the defendants. Hence, the court concludes the plaintiffs have actually sought to allege a cause of action for damages arising from perjury, which they call fraud, in a prior judicial proceeding, even though they now label their pleading otherwise.
The gist of defendants' motions is that Florida does not recognize such a claim under any theory. They say that Myers v. Hodges establishes an absolute privilege for parties, witnesses and their lawyers for anything said by them in the course of a judicial proceeding, so long as it is relevant. Defendants also point to Wright v. Yurko, supra, and Perl v. Omni International of Miami Ltd., supra, [439 So.2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ] both of which hold squarely that all false testimony damages claims are barred by the privilege rule of Myers.
Plaintiffs respond ... that they have not sought "redress for perjury alone." But an act which cannot be the basis for an action against one person similarly cannot be the basis for an action against several persons as a claim for civil conspiracy. Wright v. Yurko, supra. Thus there is no separate cause of action for civil conspiracy as an independent tort, separate from another legally recognized civil wrong ...
As for the fraud count, although it is wordy and repetitive, it merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dexter v. Spokane County Health Dist.
...of action arises out of perjured testimony presented in a prior judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Regal Marble, Inc. v. Drexel Invs., Inc., 568 So.2d 1281, 1282-83 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990), review denied, 583 So.2d 1036 (Fla.1991); Collier v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 205 Ga.App. 323, 422 S.E.2d......
-
Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours
...("Concealment of evidence, however, does not form a basis for a claim of spoliation."); see, e.g., Regal Marble, Inc. v. Drexel Investments, Inc., 568 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1990) (finding no cause of action for the deliberate introduction of alleged false exhibits into evidence......
-
Tomlin v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (In re Tomlin), Case No. 15-20852
...of action for perjury and to the extent Tomlin is asserting a fraud claim, it is preempted. See Regal Marble, Inc. v. Drexel Invs., Inc., 568 So. 2d 1281, 1282-83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) ("There is no cause of action recognized in this state for false statements made in prior judicial pr......
-
Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View of Miami, Ltd., 97-2629
...to timely raise this infirmity in its prior appeals has now resulted in a waiver of this issue. See Regal Marble, Inc. v. Drexel Invs., Inc., 568 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Behar v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank at Sunny Isles, 519 So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Morris v. Con......