A AAABLE BAIL BONDS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ABLE BAIL BOND, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND WAYNE H. SPATH, RESPONDENTS
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.
Aaable Bail Bonds sought certiorari review of a trial court's order imposing attorney fees and costs as sanctions for failure to comply with a discovery order. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the sanction order, finding that Aaable's counsel acted in good faith and was justified in its failure to comply due to confusion about how to comply.
The trial court's sanction order violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2) because it did not comply with the rule's requirement that sanctions not be imposed when the failure to comply was justified. Since Aaable's counsel acted in good faith and attempted to comply despite being confused about the requirements, the failure was justified and sanctions were improper.
[1] A trial court must award reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, as a sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order, unless the failure was justified or o…
[2] A party's good faith attempt to comply with a discovery order, coupled with confusion as to the conditions of compliance, may constitute a justified failure to comply, pr…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the court shall require the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the failure was justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust”
Establishes the legal standard from Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(b)(2) requiring the court to find failure was justified before imposing sanctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAaable Bail Bonds was ordered by the trial court (March 10, 1993) to comply with discovery obligations. Aaable's counsel attempted to comply with the …
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 Willful Refusal To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1106] PER CURIAM.
A Aaable Bail Bonds, Inc. (Aaable) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order that Aaable pay opposing counsel’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction for failure to comply with a prior discovery order. For the following reason, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.
The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law because it does not comply with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(b)(2) which deals with sanctions for violating discovery orders and provides, “the court shall require the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the failure was justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (Emphasis supplied.) We find that, under the circumstances of this case, counsel for Aaable acted in good faith and attempted to comply with the lower court’s order but was confused as to how to do so.
Therefore, Aaable’s failure to comply with the order was justified and the trial court should not have imposed an additional sanction.
The record does not establish that Aaable willfully refused to comply with the court order of March 10, 1993, or engaged in a “calculated effort to conceal or a conscious design to deceive the court.” Mittleman v. Rowe Int’l, Inc., 511 So. 2d 766, 767-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); cf. Zayres Dept. Stores v. Fingerhut, 383 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (good faith effort to comply, along with counsel’s confusion as to conditions of compliance, did not amount to willful failure to comply).
We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order imposing sanctions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yair Barak v. ACS Int'l Projects, Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…because no evidence was adduced . . . to prove what relationship, if any, the $31,000 sanction b[ore] to ‘reasonable expenses caused by the failure’” to appear for deposition) (citation omitted); A Aaable Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Able Bail Bond, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“The trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of the law because it does not comply with Fl[orida] R[ule of] Civ[il] P[rocedure] 1.380(b)(2) which deals with sanctions for violating discovery orders an…
-
State Dep't OF Revenue v. Aguirre, 705 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…e clear that counsel for Aguirre had the item all along. Vasquez should not have been penalized for not producing either a nonexistent item or an item of which Aguirre was already in possession. See A Aaable Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Able Bail Bond, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Morales v. Four Star Poultry and Provision Co., Inc., 523 So. 2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). With regard to the other items, the failure to produce the single DNA gel form (which was in fact later produced) was mere ina…
-
Boca Invs. Grp., Inc. v. Irwin Potash, 832 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…nding that the trial court acted within its discretion to impose sanctions for willfully failing to comply. with discovery. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b); see Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); A Aaable Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Abel Bail Bonds, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Further, we find that the amount of fees awarded was reasonable. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Jacobsen v. Monroe Cnty., 383 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Carlton Adderly v. State, 511 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Barbara and John Jay Mittleman v. Rowe Int'l, Inc., 511 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)