ANITA SYROWIK, APPELLANT,
v.
BILMAR HOTEL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A BILMAR BEACH RESORT, APPELLEE
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.
Anita Syrowik appealed the dismissal with prejudice of her personal injury complaint against a hotel after a door struck her. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Syrowik's pattern of litigation misconduct—including failure to appear for depositions, refusal to submit to medical examinations, and misrepresentations about her location—constituted willful misconduct justifying the drastic remedy of dismissal.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court acted within its discretionary authority and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. The court found that Syrowik's conduct constituted willful misconduct amply demonstrating the necessity for the drastic remedy of dismissal.
[1] Dismissal of a party's action is a drastic remedy to be used only in extreme situations.
[2] A trial court acts within its discretionary authority when a litigant engages in willful misconduct, including failure to appear for deposition, refusal to submit to medi…
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“the sanction of dismissal of a party's action is a drastic remedy which should be used only in extreme situations”
Establishes the legal standard that dismissal is an extreme sanction to be used sparingly
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSyrowik filed a complaint on March 21, 1989, alleging injury from a door opened by a maid at Bilmar Hotel. Over the course of four years, Syrowik repe…
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 Sanction Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Anita Syrowik claimed she was injured at the Bilmar Hotel when a door opened by a maid struck her. She has appealed, pro se, from an order dismissing her complaint with prejudice. In concluding to affirm the trial court’s disposition of this matter, we are not unmindful of the generally held view in this district that the “sanction of dismissal of a party’s action is a drastic remedy which should be used only in extreme situations.” Martin v. Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc., 619 So. 2d 435, 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citing Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). The circumstances surrounding the instant proceeding describe and, indeed, by any measure, go beyond an extreme situation ordaining the result reached by the trial court.
The uncontroverted record of events in the trial court, which we need not recount in extensive detail, occurred in the period beginning with the filing of Ms. Syrowik’s complaint on March 21, 1989, and ending on August 23, 1993, the date of its dismissal. A condensed history of that which transpired in the trial court discloses Ms. Syrowik’s failure to appear for the taking of her deposition, her unwillingness to submit to an independent medical examination, repeated motions for sanctions seeking to remedy her defiant refusal to cooperate in prosecuting the litigation, multiple orders placing her on notice of the consequences of not complying with the requirements imposed upon her as a litigant, a succession of attorneys who were ultimately permitted to withdraw, and misrepresentations stemming from her asserted presence in Michigan when in fact the trial court found she was in Florida.
In sum, based upon the conduct we have distilled from the record, wholly attributable to Ms. Syrowik, the trial court acted fully within its discretionary authority and we find no error or abuse in its determination to end this matter with finality. The essential element of willful misconduct engaged in by Ms. Syrowik is abundantly evident. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990); Marr v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 614 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Sheik Abdul Rahman Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Marr v. State, 614 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Isidro Santiago Pena v. State, 619 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)