AQUILINO HORJALES, APPELLANT,
v.
JAN GILBERT LOEB ET AL., APPELLEES
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 held that the trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment for the defendants based on a finding of collusion between the plaintiff and a principal defendant.
The plaintiff gave sworn testimony material to liability in a prior case that directly contradicted his sworn testimony in the current case. This chan…
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 Collusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendants. The single point presented: “Whether the lower court erred in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the defendants based upon a determination of an issue of fact, to wit: Whether the plaintiff and the defendant Martinez colluded”.
The point presented has two aspects. First, did the facts before the court warrant a finding of collusion. Second, does the court have the right to dismiss a cause with prejudice when collusion appears between the plaintiff and a principal defendant. We answer both questions in the affirmative.
The court’s finding that the plaintiff was guilty of collusion with the defendant Martinez was based upon the fact that the plaintiff admitted that he had given sworn testimony material to the issue of liability in another court proceeding, which testimony was exactly contrary to his sworn testimony in the instant cause. The present defendant was defendant in the prior case and the testimony as changed would make possible the collection upon an insurance liability policy. In the absence of explanation which was not offered, it would appear that the plaintiff was guilty of perjury in one of the cases. In view of the admissions of the plaintiff and the claimed basis for liability of the defendants, we hold that the record supports the court’s finding.
Under these circumstances, the trial court had the right to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. One who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a law suit. See Ashwood v. Patterson, Fla.1951, 49 So. 2d 848; Kansas City Operating Corporation v. Durwood, 278 F. 2d 354 (8th Cir.1960). We think that the facts established collusion as a basis for the suit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…d 476 (Fla.1997); Mendez v. Blanco, 665 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So. 2d 550, 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1995); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Fair v. Tampa Elec. Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So. 2d 514 (1946); Fagan v. Powell, 237 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)). Because the record clearly establishes that plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, we hold that she has forfei…
-
Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…dministration of justice”), review denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1995); Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(trial court has inherent authority to dismiss entire action for fraud which permeates the proceedings); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)(“One who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a lawsuit.”); see also Fair v. Tampa Elec. Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So. 2d 514 (1946); Fagan v. Powell, 237 So. 2d at 579. We can think of no situati…
-
Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…courts. It is a power, however, which should be cautiously and sparingly exercised and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or other similar wrongdoing. Rhea v. Hackney, 117 Fla. 62, 157 So. 190 (1934); Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Parham v. Kohler, 134 So. 2d 274 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). In the instant case, the trial court has made certain findings of fact upon which it based its orders of dismissal which we have carefully studied.1 In essence, these findings c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1951)
- Kan. City Operating Corp. v. Durwood, 278 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1960)