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 awarding monetary sanctions against him in favor of multiple appellees based on fraud on the court. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses and remands, holding that the appellees failed to establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, consistent with its prior decision in Chess I.
The court reversed and remanded the monetary sanctions award because appellees failed to establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence. Fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence that a party has intentionally set in motion an unconscionable scheme to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially adjudicate the matter.
[1] Fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence that a party has sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial sys…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Fraud on the court occurs where there is 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 or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.'”
Court's definition of fraud on the court standard
Chess brought a complaint alleging fraud on the court against Edmund J. Sweeney and multiple other parties. 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 April 27, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1006 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, for appellees. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Stanley D. Chess appeals the trial court’s order granting monetary sanctions for fraud on the court in favor of Appellees Edmund J.
Sweeney; Edmund Sweeney Jr.; Leslie Sweeney; Martin Fiascone; Robert Fiascone; Sandy Fiascone; Fiascone Family Limited 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 ‘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 or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.’” (quoting Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008))).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc., 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985)…ff would receive a commission only if in defendant's employ upon completion of sale); Bendevena v. Richard Fuchs Real Estate, Inc., 89 Misc.2d 466, 391 N.Y.S.2d 939 (1976) (applying agency law to real estate sales); Parisi v. Swift, 121 Misc.2d 787, 468 N.Y.S.2d 841 (Civil Ct. 1983) (same). . This error was aggravated by a .charge on damages which instructed the jury to award Wakefield all the commissions he "would have earned" had he remained in NTI’s employ. To the extent this language suggested that he migh…
Authorities Cited
- Sonny Ramey and Vicky Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Elvis Hernandez v. City OF Miami & Fla. Dep't of Transp., 35 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Chess v. Sweeney, 325 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)