EVELINA ROSENTHAL AND VLADIMIR ROSENTHAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
EUGENIO RODRIGUEZ, 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.
The trial court dismissed Evelina Rosenthal's personal injury action and her husband Vladimir's derivative loss of consortium claim based on her repeated perjurous testimony during discovery and trial. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Evelina's claims and Vladimir's derivative claim as a proper exercise of inherent authority to sanction fraud and misconduct, but reversed and remanded Vladimir's separate property damage claim for reconsideration.
The court affirmed the dismissal of Evelina's personal injury claim and Vladimir's derivative loss of consortium claim, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking pleadings due to fraud and misconduct. However, the court reversed and remanded Vladimir's separate and non-derivative claim for property damage to his vehicle for further consideration.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by striking a plaintiff's pleadings and dismissing the cause with prejudice when the plaintiff has engaged in repeated and per…
[2] A party guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the institution it has subverted.
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“that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends.”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissing claims based on a party's fraudulent or misconduct-based abuse of the judicial process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvelina Rosenthal brought a personal injury action against Eugenio Rodriguez arising from an accident. During discovery and trial, Evelina made repeat…
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 Property Damage Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based upon the repeated and pervasive perjurious statements made by the appellanUplaintiff, Evelina Rosenthal, on matters central to her personal injuries action against the appellee, Eugenio Rodriguez throughout the course of discovery and trial, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it exercised its inherent authority to strike her pleadings and dismiss her cause with prejudice. Courts throughout this state have repeatedly held “‘that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends.’” Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(quoting Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)); see also Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Moreover, since Evelina’s main claim in this cause stands dismissed, so too must Vladimir Rosenthal’s derivative claim for loss of consortium. See Faulkner v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 214, 217 (Fla.1979); AC & S, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Finally, upon the proper and commendable confession of error by the appellee, we must reverse the court’s dismissal of Vladimir’s separate and non-derivative claim for property damage to his vehicle. See Sinatra v. Ikaros Aviation, Inc., 723 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Smith v. Spitale, 675 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Bird v. Hardrives of Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Ilene Sales Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Bird v. Hardrives OF Delray, Inc., 644 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 644 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Paul B. Faulkner et ux. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1979)
- ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Smith v. Spitale, 675 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Sinatra v. Ikaros Aviation, Inc., 723 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)