ROBERT A. PIUNNO AND APRIL PIUNNO, APPELLANTS,
v.
R.F. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 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 court affirmed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of a negligence complaint based on fraud on the court, where the plaintiff made multiple misrepresentations about his prior injuries and litigation history. The appellate court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss after finding clear and convincing evidence of intentional misrepresentations designed to hamper the defendant's defense.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court's inherent authority to dismiss for fraud on the court is appropriate when a plaintiff perpetrates fraud, and in this case, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Piunno intentionally made seven misrepresentations calculated to hide the truth and unfairly hamper the defendant's defense.
[1] A trial court possesses inherent authority to dismiss an action when a plaintiff perpetrates a fraud on the court.
[2] Dismissal of an action for fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence of intentional misrepresentations designed to obfuscate the truth and hamper the oppo…
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 has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.”
Establishes the legal basis for dismissal on fraud on the court grounds and the trial court's inherent authority to do so.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Piunno filed a negligence claim against R.F. Concrete Construction, Inc. for a work-related hip and knee injury. During discovery, the defendan…
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
DAMOORGIAN, DORIAN K, Associate Judge.
This appeal follows the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of the negligence complaint filed by Robert Piunno (“Piun-no”) 1 for fraud on the court. We affirm because the record before us supports the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that Piunno made seven misrepresentations regarding his prior injuries and litigation history, and filed a false affidavit intended to obfuscate the truth and hamper the defendant’s ability to defend. Taylor v. Martell, 893 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Ruiz v. Orlando, 859 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Piunno filed a negligence claim against R.F. Concrete Construction, Inc., (“RF”) arising out of a work related injury to his hip and knee. After conducting discovery, RF filed a motion to dismiss for fraud on the trial court. The motion set forth evidence that Piunno made a number of misrepresentations regarding his past medical and litigation histories calculated to hide the truth concerning his prior hip injuries and existing medical problems.
In Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), we held that “[t]he trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.” “When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should ‘consider the proper mix of factors’ and carefully balance a policy favoring ad judication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.” Arzuman, 843 So. 2d at 952 (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F. 2d 1115, 1117-18 (1st Cir.1989)); Taylor, 893 So. 2d at 646.
In the instant case, the trial court concluded that Piunno made numerous misrepresentations, considered the circumstances under which the misrepresentations were made, and determined that the misrepresentations were relevant to the ultimate issues in the case. Next, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Piunno intentionally set in motion a calculated scheme to unfairly hamper the opposing party’s defense. Finally, it is apparent from the order of dismissal that the trial judge went to great lengths to balance the policy favoring adjudication on the merits with the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial system before concluding that dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.
It is worth noting that the trial court’s written order contains a thoughtful discussion of the facts and a well-reasoned conclusion, clearly showing the court balanced the equities. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla.2004) (“Express findings are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than one interpretation.”). On the record before us, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion by the imposition of the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
STONE and MAY JJ., concur. . The complaint included a count for loss of consortium by April Piunno.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…s dismissal of plaintiff’s action based on fraud on the court where plaintiffs attempted to conceal the dog attack that caused injuries attributable to the fall at issue and attempted to conceal past symptoms); Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr., Inc., 904 So. 2d 658, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action based on fraud on the court where plaintiff made a number of misrepresentations "regarding his prior injuries and litigation history, and filed a false affidavit inten…
-
Chacha v. Transp. USA, Inc., 78 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…standard, the trial court’s discretion is narrowed where dismissal is imposed for fraudulent conduct such as that alleged here, in which a more stringent abuse of discretion standard is appropriate.”). In Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Construction, Inc., 904 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), we noted that the trial court’s written order contained “a thoughtful discussion of the facts and a well-reasoned conclusion, clearly showing the court balanced the equities.” Id. at 659. Based on this detailed written order, we…
-
Herman v. Intracoastal Cardiology Ctr., 121 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…se testimony as to Mrs. Herman’s activity levels at trial. The trial court adequately balanced the equities, and even noted in its order that certain inconsisten [*590] cies, alone, were “relatively minor.” See Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr., Inc., 904 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (giving deference to imposition of dismissal sanction where “trial court’s written order contains a thoughtful discussion of the facts and a well-reasoned conclusion, clearly showing the court balanced the equities”). In thi…
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
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989)
- Aurelia Ruiz v. City OF Orlando, 859 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Arzuman v. Shamsah Saud and Lawrence Bunin, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Taylor v. Serafina A. Martell, 893 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)