Segall v. Downtown Associates, 88-1100
| Decision Date | 21 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1100,88-1100 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | Barry SEGALL and Edward Segall, Appellants, v. DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATES, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Arthur J. England, Jr., Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Black & England, Miami, Fla., for appellants.
Patricia M. Silver, Mandler & Silver, Miami, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an unsuperseded money judgment. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the claim that the appellants had willfully evaded discovery in aid of execution. A determination of appellees' motion to dismiss was deferred until oral argument on the merits of the appeal set for October 24, 1988, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Following oral argument, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to ascertain appellants' previous compliance with its orders.
In a written order containing findings, the trial court again concluded that the appellants were in defiance of its previous discovery orders. In brief, the trial court, on three separate occasions (June 23, 1988, July 28, 1988, and August 18, 1988), ordered appellants to produce various documents and submit to various discovery procedures in aid of appellees' discovery for execution. Additionally, the trial court on August 30, 1988, adjudged appellants in contempt of court with the opportunity to purge upon compliance. On September 26, 1988, the trial court reaffirmed its previous adjudication of contempt of appellants and afforded them sufficient time to purge at any time by compliance with the extent discovery orders. An appeal from the contempt order has been voluntarily dismissed.
Following the lodging of the trial court's findings with this court, appellants moved for leave to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, which was granted. By subsequent order, their response time was enlarged. We now have the benefit of the appellants' brief in opposition to the appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal, appellees' answer brief, and appellants' reply brief. It appears without doubt that appellants have persistently defied previous trial court orders which allowed them sufficient time and opportunity to purge themselves of contempt. The conduct is clearly more egregious than that which prompted an involuntary dismissal in Davidson v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 501 So.2d 603 (Fla.1987). There has been some compliance with discovery orders since we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sommer v. Monga
...v. Bach, 80 Cal.App.3d 442, 448, 145 Cal.Rptr. 599 (1978); Gazil v. Gazil, 343 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla.1977); Segall v. Downtown Assocs., 546 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989). The significant issue is whether the appellant wilfully violated the trial court's orders, thereby placing recovery ......
-
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 93-2404
...see McLemore v. McLemore, 567 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 1st DCA), cause dismissed, 576 So.2d 289 (Fla.1990); Segall v. Downtown Assocs., 546 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Keidaish v. Smith, 400 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also State v. Gurican, 576 So.2d 709 (Fla.1991) (discussing dism......
-
Luskin v. Luskin
...Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 501 So.2d 603 (Fla.1987); DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Segall v. Downtown Assoc., 546 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Minor v. Minor, 240 So.2d 301 (Fla.1970); Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320 The facts of this case do not appear ......
-
Sell v. Sell
...either entertain or dismiss an appeal."); McLemore v. McLemore, 567 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Segall v. Downtown Assocs., 546 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Keidaish v. Smith, 400 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). An appellate court, however, should ordinarily provide a grace perio......