STANLEY D. CHESS
v.
EDMUND J. SWEENEY
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.
Stanley D. Chess appeals a trial court order dismissing his complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the appellee failed to meet the heightened "clear and convincing evidence" standard required to justify dismissal as a sanction for fraud on the court.
The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the appellee failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Chess had sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially adjudicate the matter. Dismissal for fraud on the court is a severe sanction requiring this heightened evidentiary standard and is appropriate only in the most egregious cases.
[1] Dismissal of a complaint for fraud on the court is an extreme sanction that may be imposed only upon clear and convincing evidence that a party sentiently set in motion a…
[2] A trial court's dismissal order for fraud on the court is reviewed for abuse of discretion under a narrowed standard that takes into account the heightened requirement of…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“it is established by clear and convincing evidence '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.”
Court's statement of the standard required for dismissal based on fraud on the court
Stanley D. Chess filed a complaint against Edmund J. Sweeney and others in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The trial court dismissed Chess's complain…
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
Opinion filed August 18, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1167 Lower Tribunal No. 18-1008 ________________ Stanley D. Chess,
Appellant,
vs.
Edmund J. Sweeney, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. The Levey Law Firm, P.A., and John R. Kelso, for appellant. Greenspoon Marder LLP, and Deborah Baker and Helbert Canales-Rojas, for appellees. Before EMAS, LOGUE and HENDON, JJ. EMAS, J.
Stanley D. Chess, the plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court. Although we review such an order under an abuse of discretion standard, “we do so with the understanding that this standard is ‘somewhat narrowed,’ as it must take into account the heightened standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ upon which an order of dismissal for fraud on the court must be based.”
Suarez v. Benihana Nat. of Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citations omitted). See also Willie-Koonce v. Miami Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So. 3d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (observing that because an order dismissing an action is a “severe sanction, to be administered only in the most egregious cases,” we review such an order under “a narrowed abuse of discretion standard”) (quoting Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).
While it is true that a trial court “has the inherent authority to dismiss an action when it finds that a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court,”
Medina v. Fla. East Coast Ry., L.L.C., 866 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), dismissal is appropriate only where “it is established by clear and convincing evidence ‘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.” Hair v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 766, 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)).
Upon our consideration of the record, appellee failed to meet this heightened standard, and the trial court in the instant case abused its discretion in imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chess v. Sweeney (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…Partnership; Pullman Financial Group, LLC; Benjamin Schwartz; Robert Schwartz; and Eric T. Sigler. Because this Court previously held that Appellees failed to establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, see Chess v. Sweeney, 325 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Chess I”), we reverse and remand the monetary sanctions on the same basis.1 See also Hernandez v. City of Miami, 35 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Fraud on the court occurs where there is clear and convincing evidence…
-
Chernoff v. City of N. Miami Beach (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Pedraza v. The City of Miramar (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Jose and Anais Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l OF Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Medina v. Fla. E. Coast Ry., L.L.C., 866 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Willie-Koonce v. Miami Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Hair v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)