FIRST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.
v.
OLEG SEMENOV, P.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
First Florida International refused to refund a mistaken $300,000 wire transfer sent by Oleg Semenov, who sued and obtained a default judgment after the trial court found the defendant's counsel engaged in willful disobedience of court orders. On appeal, First Florida International challenged the default judgment on multiple grounds, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects.
The trial court properly entered a default judgment against First Florida International. The court correctly applied the six Kozel factors in determining that default was an appropriate sanction for counsel's misconduct rather than the client's behavior. The trial court's active participation in the proceedings and explicit statement that the judgment constituted its independent ruling despite reviewing proposed orders from both parties demonstrated proper exercise of judicial discretion.
[1] A trial court must consider the Kozel factors to determine whether a default judgment is an appropriate sanction for an attorney's misconduct.
[2] A trial court's independent ruling is supported by its active participation in proceedings, including asking questions and taking notes.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the attorney's disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and 6) whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.”
The six Kozel factors that guide courts in determining whether default judgment is appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOleg Semenov sent $300,000 to First Florida International in error. When First Florida International refused to refund the money, Semenov sued. The tr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudgment Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-2329 Lower Tribunal No. 22-22629-CA-01
First Florida International, LLC, et al., Appellants,
VS.
Oleg Semenov, P.A., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Alonso Appeals, and Cristina Alonso; Kelley Kronenberg, and Angelo A. Gasparri, II, (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.
Wolff Law, P.A., and David E. Wolff (Hallandale Beach); Law Offices of Joshua D. Clark, P.A., and Joshua D. Clark (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
At the heart of this dispute is a mistaken $300,000 wire transfer. After Appellee Oleg Semenov sent the funds in error, Appellant First Florida International, LLC refused to refund the money. Semenov sued, triggering a bitter legal conflict.
Semenov eventually moved for sanctions and sought a default judgment. The trial court held an extensive evidentiary hearing over several months—during which First Florida International cycled through legal representation. Ultimately, the trial court analyzed the Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) factors in a comprehensive order, entering a final default judgment and awarding both damages and attorney’s fees.
First Florida International’s former counsel subsequently moved for rehearing, asserting the right to appear and present evidence. The trial court granted the motion, vacated the final default judgment, and convened a second evidentiary hearing. But the court narrowed the scope of this hearing, limiting the evidence to the fifth Kozel factor. After the hearing, the trial court issued an exhaustive twenty-three-page, amended final default judgment, which again awarded attorney’s fees and assessed damages. The amended order primarily integrated new evidence concerning the withdrawn attorney. To address any concerns regarding the drafting of the order, the court included a footnote stating that
On appeal, First Florida International raises a litany of challenges to the final default judgment. Finding none of these arguments meritorious, we affirm the trial court’s ruling in all respects. See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818 > (“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is > warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the > attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than > an act of neglect or inexperience;2) whether the attorney has been > previously sanctioned;3) whether the client was personally involved in the > act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party > through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) > whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and > 6) whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.”); Rhoades v. Rodriguez, 359 So. 3d 359, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (noting trial court properly considered that other judges have found misconduct on the part of the attorney); Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Fernandes, 149 So. 3d 744, 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Moreover, to ensure that a litigant is not unduly punished for failures of counsel, a trial court must consider those factors delineated by the Florida Supreme Court in Kozel to determine whether
¹ See Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004).
4
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Vicente J. Fernandes, 149 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Rhoades v. Lilmissette Rodriguez, 359 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)