GLENN H. MARTIN AND EVELYN MARTIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL MENNELLO AND MARILYN MENNELLO, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The Martins appealed final judgments dismissing their contract action and awarding damages to the Mennellos after the trial court imposed discovery sanctions—striking their pleadings and barring their testimony—because they refused depositions while asserting Fifth Amendment privilege. The court reversed, finding the harsh sanction was an abuse of discretion, particularly where the Martins were defendants asserting constitutional rights.
The trial court abused its discretion in striking the pleadings and prohibiting testimony as a discovery sanction, particularly because the remedy was harsh, was not sought by the appellees, was not noticed for hearing, and was imposed against defendants invoking Fifth Amendment rights. The damages calculation issue is moot given the reversal of the striking of pleadings.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings and barring their testimony as a discovery sanction is an abuse of discretion when such a harsh remedy was not sought by the opposing party.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by sua sponte imposing a severe discovery sanction, such as striking pleadings and barring testimony, without notice or a request from…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under the instant facts, we find that it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to strike the pleadings and prohibit the testimony of the appellants, particularly in view of the fact that such a harsh remedy was not sought, nor noticed for hearing by, the appellees.”
Establishes the core holding that the sanction was an abuse of discretion because it was not requested by the opposing party and was not noticed for hearing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Martins filed suit seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement with the Mennellos in November 1990. The Mennellos filed a counterclaim al…
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 Securities Law Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This is the appeal of two final judgments entered against appellants as a result of a discovery sanction which struck their pleadings and barred them from testifying in the underlying cases because they had refused to be deposed after asserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. There are two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by striking appellants’ testimony and pleadings; (2) whether the trial court erred in calculating the damages awarded.
On November 12, 1990, appellants, Glenn H. Martin, Evelyn Martin, Martin’s Home & Hobby House, Inc., and 20th Century Financial Corporation of America, filed a complaint against appellees, Michael Men-nello, Marilyn Mennello and Home & Hobby House, Inc., seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement between the parties. Thereafter, on March 13,1991, Michael and Marilyn Mennello filed a complaint in a second action naming as defendants Glenn Martin, 20th Century Financial Corporation of America, and Evelyn Martin. In this latter action, the defendants were charged with various securities violations. The two cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery only.
Apparently, during discovery, the Martins became the target of an ongoing federal criminal investigation m relation to the instant transaction. Fearing that they might be indicted by a federal grand jury, they cancelled their depositions previously scheduled by the Mennellos on two days’ notice, and subsequently filed a motion for stay of proceedings or, in the alternative, entry of a protective order precluding discovery. In response, the Mennellos filed a Motion to Compel and for sanctions in the event of noncompliance with any court order requiring such discovery. At a subsequent hearing on December 12, 1991, the trial court granted the motion for protective order, but also barred the Martins from testifying at trial and sua sponte struck their pleadings in both cases. As a result, the trial court ultimately entered a final dismissal in Case NO. CI 90-9313 (filed by the Martins) and a final judgment for the appellees in Case No. CI 91-2324 (filed by the Mennellos) awarding the appellees $704,854.80 damages and ordering the return of several items of office furniture to the Mennellos.
Under the instant facts, we find that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to strike the pleadings and prohibit the testimony of the appellants, particularly in view of the fact that such a harsh remedy was not sought, nor noticed for hearing by, the appellees. Such abuse was particularly manifest in the case wherein the Martins occupied the status of defendants invoking their Fifth Amendment right. See In re Forfeiture of $13,000.00 U.S. Currency, 522 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In view of our disposition of the first issue on appeal, the second is moot.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kresler v. State, 522 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- In re Forfeiture OF $13 v. Eagan, 522 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)