FRANK SAVINO, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DRIVE IN THEATRE MANAGEMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Appellant Frank Savino appealed the dismissal with prejudice of his personal injury fraud claim after the trial court found that he had perpetrated fraud on the court through fabricated credentials and false statements about his condition. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that where fraud permeates the entire proceedings and goes to the heart of a party's damages claim, dismissal of the entire case is an appropriate sanction.
The court held that dismissal with prejudice was proper because Savino's fraud permeated the entire proceedings and went to the heart of his damages claim. The court further held that Savino's claim that the dismissal was improper without an evidentiary hearing was not preserved for review.
[1] Dismissal of an entire case with prejudice is proper where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court that permeates the entire proceedings.
[2] A plaintiff's repeated fabrications regarding matters central to their damages claim can undermine the integrity of the entire action.
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“where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper”
Establishes the legal standard for when fraud justifies dismissal of an entire case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSavino brought a personal injury action against a Florida drive-in theatre for brain damage and lost wages sustained while on the premises. The defend…
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 Fraud On The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant/plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his personal injury action based upon fraud. Appellant sought recovery for brain damage and lost wages due to injuries he sustained while an invitee on premises owned by the appellee. In support of its motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint, appellee presented evidence to the trial court that appellant lied about obtaining a master’s degree in engineering from New York University and even produced a fake master’s degree diploma from the university. In addition, there was evidence that appellant lied to his treating physician about his educational background and above-average level of intelligence causing the physician to improperly relate his average level of intelligence to the damages he sustained during the accident. Although appellant testified during deposition that he was unable to work, appellee presented deposition testimony from an employer stating that appellant worked as an independent contractor for him following the accident. Based on these submissions, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding that fraud permeated the case.
Appellant claims that the trial court’s dismissal of his case with prejudice was improper where the misconduct complained of pertained to only a portion of his claim. We recognized in Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), that where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper. Appellant lied about matters which went to the heart of his claim on damages. These repeated fabrications undermined the integrity of his entire action. We believe that the trial court has the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court. See id.; Tri Star Invs., Inc. v. Miele, 407 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 680 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1996). Appellant’s conduct amounted to a scheme calculated to interfere with the court’s ability to impartially adjudicate his claim. Thus, we do not find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.
With regard to appellant’s claim that the court’s dismissal was improper in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, we find that this claim was not preserved for review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985).
AFFIRMED.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., and DONNER, AMY STEELE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…rham. However, where a party lies about matters pertinent to his own claim, or a portion of it, and perpetrates a fraud that permeates the entire proceeding, dismissal of the whole case is proper. Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In this case, there is a good deal that Burke and Gordon put forth as “fraud” that is either not fraud . or is unproven. Cox’s use of multiple social security numbers over the years in her medical forms is an example of the for…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…“many false or misleading answers in sworn discovery that either appear calculated to evade or stymy discovery on issues central to her ease.” Cox, 706 So. 2d at 47; see Hanono, 723 So. 2d at 896; Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Mendez, 665 So. 2d at 1150; O'Vahey, 644 So. 2d at 550. See also Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944). Although plaintiffs responses included doctors she had visite…
-
Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…a prior appellate opinion did not justify setting the decision aside, holding that it had “both the duty and the power” [e.s.] to do so. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 322 U.S. at 250-51, 64 S.Ct. at 997. Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) similarly states: We recognized in Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), that where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Ilene Sales Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- TRI Star Invs., Inc. v. Miele, 407 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Tramel v. Runette J. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)