FIRST FAIRWAY CONDOMINIUM I ASSOCIATION, INC., FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GULFSTREAM ROOFING, 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.
First Fairway Condominium Association appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against Gulfstream Roofing as a sanction for counsel's failure to appear at a court-ordered status conference. The appellate court reversed, holding that dismissal as a sanction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c) requires an express finding of willful and contumacious conduct, which the trial court failed to make.
A trial court must make an express finding of willful and contumacious behavior supported by the record before dismissing a complaint as a sanction under Rule 1.200(c). The trial court abused its discretion by imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal without this required finding.
[1] A trial court cannot dismiss a suit for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) without first satisfying the rule's prerequisites, including a…
[2] Dismissal of an action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c) for failure to attend a case management or pretrial conference requires a finding that the party's c…
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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c) allows a trial court to dismiss a complaint as a sanction if the plaintiff fails to appear at a court-ordered status conference. However, where a trial court seeks to dismiss a lawsuit pursuit to rule 1.200(c) — dismissal being the harshest of all sanctions — the trial court must find that the party's conduct was 'willful and contumacious.'”
Establishes the legal standard requiring express findings of willful and contumacious conduct before imposing dismissal as a sanction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Fairway sued Gulfstream Roofing in March 1994. Minimal discovery occurred between the parties, with only a deposition and interrogatories exchan…
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 Dismissal Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, First Fairway Condominium I Association, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its' complaint as a sanction for its counsel’s failure to attend a court-ordered status conference. We reverse for want of an express finding of willful and contumacious behavior that is supported by the record.
In March 1994, First Fairway sued Appel-lee, Gulfstream Roofing, Inc. The only discovery occurring between the parties was a scheduled deposition and a set of interrogatories answered by First Fairway in September 1995. Eleven months later, in August 1996, the trial court ordered the parties to attend a status conference pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.085 in order “to give [the] parties an opportunity to show good cause why this action should not be dismissed.” A couple of days after the scheduled status conference, the trial court dismissed First Fairway’s complaint with prejudice, finding that First Fairway’s counsel did not appear at the court-ordered status conference. The dismissal order did not contain a finding of willful and contumacious behavior. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(c) allows a trial court to dismiss a complaint as a sanction if the plaintiff fails to appear at a court-ordered status conference.
However, where a trial court seeks to dismiss a lawsuit pursuit to rule 1.200(c) — dismissal being the harshest of all sanctions — the trial court must find that the party’s conduct was “willful and contumacious.” See, e.g., Lenfestey v. United States Balloon Corp., 699 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046, 1047-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918, 919-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1990).
Here, the trial court’s order failed to include an express finding of willful and contumacious behavior. By imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal without an express finding of willful and contumacious behavior that is supported by the record, the trial court abused its discretion. See Lenfestey, 699 So. 2d at 850; Zeigler, 626 So. 2d at 1047-48; Kelley, 613 So. 2d at 919-20; World on Wheels of Miami, Inc. v. International Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaufman v. FS Tenant Pool III Tr., 87 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…this court held, the trial court must also find that the party willfully and contumaciously failed to attend the conference. Dedmon v. Kelly, 60 So. 3d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting First Fairway Condo. I Ass’n v. Gulf stream Roofing, Inc., 701 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see also Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“A finding that the party’s conduct was willful and contumacious is necessary for entering a default under rule 1.200(c).”). Failure to include a findi…
-
Greenhill v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 834 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…he party’s conduct was willful or deliberate. The appealed order in the present case does not contain such a finding, and in accordance with Tubero the order must be reversed. See, e.g., First Fairway Condominium I Ass’n v. Gulfstream Roofing, Inc., 701 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded. ALLEN, C.J., DAVIS and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Petersen & Hawthorne, P.A. v. EMI Enters., Inc., 115 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…is rule is limited though, and a court should only dismiss a suit for failure to attend a case management or pretrial conference where the party’s conduct is “willful and contumacious.” First Fairway Cando. I Ass’n, Inc. v. Gulfstream Roofing, Inc., 701 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Further, the court must set forth findings supporting its ruling in the subject order, and “failure to do so constitutes reversible error.” Giemme USA, LLC v. La Sala Group, Inc., 92 So. 3d 920, 922 (Fla. 4th DCA [*1065] 20…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Zeigler v. Huston, 626 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- World ON Wheels OF Miami, Inc. v. Int'l Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Lenfestey v. United States Balloon Corp., 699 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)