JEFFREY J. HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH C. HOFFMAN, 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.
In a family law matter involving discovery violations, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's striking of the husband's pleadings based on willful noncompliance with discovery orders, but remanded with instructions to strike the contempt finding because the wife did not seek to hold him in contempt.
The trial court properly struck the husband's pleadings based on willful noncompliance with discovery orders, as pleading strikes require only a finding of willful noncompliance rather than contempt. However, the contempt finding must be struck because the wife was not seeking to hold the husband in contempt and he was not given notice of the court's intention to do so.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings for discovery violations requires a finding of willful noncompliance, not necessarily a finding of contempt.
[2] A finding of contempt is required for the imposition of a fine for discovery violations.
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 imposition of a fine for discovery violations requires a finding of contempt”
Establishes the legal standard for imposing monetary sanctions for discovery violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband was previously ordered to pay a $500 per day fine for discovery violations, which this court quashed for lack of a contempt finding. While 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 Noncompliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Husband, was previously before this court on a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging imposition of a $500 per day fine for discovery violations. We quashed the order because there was no finding that Husband was in contempt, and the imposition of a fine for discovery violations requires a finding of contempt. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1539, — So. 2d - (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 1998) (citing Florida Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Baliton, 436 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Paramount Advisors, Inc. v. Schwartz, 591 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). While the certiorari proceeding was pending, the trial court entertained Wife’s motion to strike Husband’s pleadings based on his continuing violation of discovery orders. The trial court granted the motion to strike the pleadings based on Husband’s willful refusal to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders. The trial court also held that Husband was in contempt of court. Husband then filed this non-final appeal.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Husband’s pleadings and therefore affirm that portion of the order. However, we direct the trial court, on remand, to strike the finding of contempt, as Wife was not seeking to hold Husband in contempt at that point in the proceedings. See Stevens v. Enterprise Developers, 441 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing contempt finding where appellant was not given notice of court’s intention or adverse parties’ desire to hold him in contempt). Unlike the imposition of a fine, which requires a contempt finding, the striking of pleadings need only be based on willful noncompliance, as was present here. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983); Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED.
STONE, C.J., and POLEN and GROSS,. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 793 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ontinued violation of discovery orders specifically stating, “[bjecause multiple deadlines were ignored and court orders disregarded by the Husband, a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority took place.” In Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this court affirmed the trial court’s order striking the pleadings. Subsequently, a final hearing was held and the trial court entered an Amended Final Judgment on July 5, 2000. As a basis for his first point on appeal, Former…1 / 2
-
Stewart v. Jones, 728 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…out a finding of contempt. The assessment of a fine in the discovery context must be predicated on a finding of contempt. See Hoffman v. Hoffman, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1539, - So. 2d -, 1998 WL 329575 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 1998); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paramount Advisors, Inc. v. Schwartz, 591 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (citing Palm Shores v. Nobles, 149 Fla. 103, 5 So. 2d 52 (1941)); Florida Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Baliton, 436 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Alich v. Clapp, 926 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…te Judge. The first issue for us to consider is whether the trial court erred in striking the father’s pleadings. Although it is a very harsh sanction, it was within the trial court’s discretion to strike the father’s pleadings. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). It was also within the court’s discretion to deny the father the ability to present evidence on testimony at the trial with respect to financial issues. Id. Therefore, on this issue we affirm. Next, the father is correct that t…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Fla. Physicians Ins. Reciprocal v. Romeo C. Baliton, M.D., 436 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Kendrick v. State, 591 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- SUN Power Diesel, Inc. v. Fla. Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc., 701 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Stevens v. Enter. Developers, 441 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Taylor v. State, 441 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)