RONNIE MICKENS AND GLORIA J. MICKENS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION CO., 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 Mickenses appeal a final judgment imposing $234,854.64 in damages as sanctions for refusing to permit a court-ordered inspection of their residence. The court affirms the sanction, finding the trial court properly exercised its authority to compel access and impose remedial damages when the Mickenses denied inspection despite explicit court orders.
The trial court properly imposed sanctions against the Mickenses for refusing to permit the court-ordered inspection. The court did not err in granting the motion to compel access and imposing a final judgment for damages when the Mickenses violated that order.
[1] A party's refusal to permit a court-ordered inspection of a residence can result in the imposition of damages as a sanction.
[2] A trial court may retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions for future violations after granting a motion to compel access to property.
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 trial court established procedures for the inspection of the home and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. When Damron and its expert appeared for the court-approved inspection, the Mickenses denied them access to the property.”
Establishes the core violation: the Mickenses' refusal to comply with the court-ordered inspection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case arose from a long-running construction dispute between the Mickenses and Damron Construction over the construction of their home. Following …
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 Sanctions For Discovery Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens, husband and wife, appeal from a final judgment awarding damages totaling $234,854.64 to Allen Damron Construction Co. The damages were imposed as a sanction because Mr. and Mrs. Mickens refused to permit a court-ordered inspection of a residence. We affirm.
This case has a long and tortured history, and this is not its first visit to this court. We will not revisit the entire case history. In 1998 a final judgment was entered in favor of the Mickenses against Damron. The Mickenses claimed damages resulting from the events surrounding the construction of their home by Damron. The circuit court found that Damron had committed fraud in procuring a quitclaim deed from the Mickenses and awarded relief including damages, fees, costs, and a requirement that Damron purchase a new lot for the Mickenses; in return, the Mick-enses were to deed Damron the lot and the allegedly improperly constructed house. On appeal, this court reversed. Allen Damron Constr. Co. v. Mickens, 725 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thereafter, a successor circuit judge again entered a final judgment against Damron Construction, ordering the rescission of the construction contract but also requiring the Mickenses to pay reasonable costs of materials and labor supplied in the home’s construction. Damron Construction was to convey the property and improvements to the Mickenses. The appeal of that judgment resulted in an affirmance in which a concurring opinion correctly predicted that a third appeal would occur. Mickens v. Allen Damron Constr. Co., 773 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
On remand after the second appeal, the circuit court sought to establish the reasonable amount to be paid by the Mickens-es to Damron Construction to implement the terms of the final judgment. To that end, the trial court established procedures for the inspection of the home and scheduled an evidentiary hearing. When Dam-ron and its expert appeared for the court-approved inspection, the Mickenses denied them access to the property. The court held a show cause hearing, and in granting the motion to compel access to the home, the circuit court also expressly retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions should the Mickenses again deny Damron entry onto the property. Following the hearing, Mr. Mickens was heard to threaten anyone coming on the property with bodily harm. In view of this threat, Damron’s expert expressed his fear and refused to inspect the premises. Damron claimed that Mr. Mickens’s threat effectively precluded its ability to establish the amount of this claim. The court granted the motion and determined that the sanction of a final judgment awarding damages (based upon an earlier appraisal of the house performed by the Mickenses’ expert) was appropriate.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we cannot hold that the trial court erred. We affirm.
WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mickens v. Damron, 1 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…er underlying this appeal remained open, even though it appears to involve the same underlying claims and transactions. In 2004, a panel of this court explained that this lawsuit had “a long and tortured history.” Mickens v. Allen Damron Const. Co., 890 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Four years later, the tale continues. On July 5, 2007, the trial attorney for Stewart Title Guaranty Company filed a “notice of dismissal for failure to prosecute.” The notice recited that it was filed “pursuant to Florida…
Authorities Cited
- Allen Damron Constr. Co. v. Mickens, 725 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Mickens v. Allen Damron Constr., 773 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)