ROBERT ALLEN PERRINE, DEVON PERRINE, ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT EUGENE HENDERSON, SWELL CONSTRUCTION, ETC., 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.
Robert Allen Perrine appealed a trial court's dismissal of his fraud action against Robert Eugene Henderson and Swell Construction Company for fraud on the court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion based on Perrine's significant and repeated material misrepresentations regarding his medical history and injuries, which were core issues in the case.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Perrine's action based on his significant and repeated misrepresentations. A dismissal for fraud on the court is proper when there is clear and convincing evidence of a scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to adjudicate a matter impartially.
[1] Trial courts possess inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction for fraud on the court, but this power must be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
[2] Dismissal for fraud on the court requires a clear and convincing showing that a party intentionally set in motion an unconscionable scheme to interfere with the judicial…
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 requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.”
Establishes the legal standard for fraud on the court requiring clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme interfering with impartial adjudication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Allen Perrine filed a complaint for fraud against Robert Eugene Henderson and Swell Construction Company, Inc. After two thorough hearings, 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 Egregious Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Allen Perrine appeals an order of dismissal in favor of Robert Eugene Henderson and Swell Construction Company, Inc.1 On appeal, Mr. Perrine alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint for fraud on the court. After two thorough hearings, the trial court dismissed Mr. Perrine’s case, concluding that he had made numerous material misrepresentations regarding his medical history and current injuries, all of which were core issues in the case. We affirm.
Trial courts have the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when the plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court. Wenwei Sun v. Aviles, 53 So.3d 1075, 1076-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). However, this power should be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and only on a clear showing of fraud. Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So.2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Courts act cautiously in dismissing on this basis because the Florida Constitution guarantees court availability to every person to redress injury. Wen-wei Sun, 58 So.3d at 1076-77; Granados v. Zehr, 979 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
In Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), this Court set forth the applicable test to dismiss a case for fraud:
The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sen-*1212tiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. When reviewing a case for fraud, the court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. Because dismissal sounds the death knell of the lawsuit, courts must reserve such strong medicine for instances where the defaulting party’s misconduct is correspondingly egregious. 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, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Because dismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions, however, it should be employed only in extreme circumstances.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted). Misconduct that falls short of the rigors of this test, including inconsistency, nondisclosure, poor recollection, dissemblance and even lying, is insufficient to support a dismissal for fraud, and, in many cases, may be well-managed and best resolved by bringing the issue to the jury’s attention through cross-examination. Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So.2d 526, 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Granados, 979 So.2d at 1158; Gehrmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Hence, there must be clear and convincing evidence of a “scheme calculated to evade or stymie discovery of facts central to the case.” Bologna, 995 So.2d at 528. That evidence was present here.
Having reviewed the entire record thoroughly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mr. Per-rine’s action based on his significant and repeated misrepresentations.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimenez v. Ortega, 179 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…t espoused in Cox, including inconsistency, nondisclosure, poor recollection, dissemblance, ánd even lying may be insufficient to support a dismissal for fraud. Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So. 3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Perrine v. Henderson, 85 So. 3d 1210, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)). In many cases, such conduct may be well managed through cross-examination. See id., see also Gehrmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Ruiz v. City of Orlando, 859 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fl…
-
Icmfg & Assocs., Inc. v. The Bare Bd. Grp., Inc., 238 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…he trial court's determination that the plaintiff had provided intentionally false deposition testimony and interrogatory answers concerning his prior medical treatment that were directly related to central issues in the case); Perrine v. Henderson, 85 So. 3d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (affirming an order dismissing an action for fraud on the court where the plaintiff made numerous material misrepresentations regarding his medical history and current injuries, which were central issues in the case); Babe…
-
Tia Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…motion, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice for fraud on the court. Gautreaux argues that the court reversibly erred in so ruling. We agree. This court reviews a dismissal for fraud on the court for abuse of discretion. See Perrine v. Henderson, 85 So. 3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Sun v. Aviles, 53 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). However, such a dismissal must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Perrine, 85 So. 3d at 1212; Su…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Sonny Ramey and Vicky Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Granados v. Zehr, 979 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Gehrmann v. City OF Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Wenwei SUN v. Aviles, 53 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)