JOHN W. HART, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
REGINA S. WEAVER AND RICHARD W. COLVIN, 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.
Hart, a pro se defendant, failed to file a pretrial statement as ordered by the trial court, resulting in his pleadings being struck and a default judgment entered against him. The appellate court reversed, holding that this severe sanction was disproportionate to the violation and remanded for further proceedings.
The court held that under the facts presented, the appellant's failure to file a pretrial statement, while a violation of the trial court's order, did not warrant the severe sanction of striking pleadings and entering default judgment. The sanction imposed must be commensurate with the offense, and the most severe sanctions should be reserved for flagrant, persistent, willful, or otherwise aggravated violations.
[1] Striking a party's pleadings and entering a default judgment are severe sanctions that should be reserved for flagrant, persistent, willful, or otherwise aggravated viola…
[2] The sanction imposed for failure to comply with a court order must be commensurate with the offense.
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 sanction imposed must be commensurate with the offense”
Establishes the governing principle that sanctions must be proportional to violations of court orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered all parties to file pretrial statements at least six days before the pretrial conference. The other two parties filed statemen…
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 Proportionality Of Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
The lower court entered an order striking appellant’s pleading and entering a default judgment against him. We reverse.
The appellant represented himself. In its order setting the case for a pretrial conference, the lower court ordered each party to file with the court and furnish to opposing counsel a copy of its pretrial statement at least six days prior to the pretrial conference. The other two parties in the case filed such statements albeit less than six days prior to the pretrial conference. Appellant failed to file any pretrial statement at all. This failure constituted the grounds for striking appellant’s pleadings and entering default judgment against him.
We hold that under the .facts of this case, appellant’s failure to abide by the lower court’s order to timely file a pretrial statement did not warrant such a severe sanction. In so holding, we rely upon this court’s recent decision in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 464 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In that case — which is similar, if not exactly the same — this court held:
[W]e are unwilling to hold that the court cannot strike a party’s pleadings for the wilful and flagrant failure of his attorney to comply with this or any other legitimate order. We do hold that under the facts of this case, defense counsel’s failure to abide by the order for pretrial compliance did not warrant such a severe sanction.
357 So. 2d at 465. As pointed out in Rodriguez, “the sanction imposed must be commensurate with the offense.” 357 So. 2d at 465 citing Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The imposition of the most severe sanctions contemplated by the rules should be reserved for those occasions where the violation is flagrant, persistent or willful or otherwise aggravated. There are many alternatives available to the trial court in securing proper respect for and compliance with its orders; i. e., imposition of costs or attorney’s fees or other demonstrable damages to the opposite party.
Normally, it is the policy of this court to leave discretionary matters in the capable hands of the circuit courts of this state. However, where — as in the present case — an overly severe sanction is ordered, it is our obligation to intercede.
The default judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)…d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. Hart v. Weaver, 364 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indiffere…
-
Ilene Sales Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ny before the court. . Tri Star Investments, Inc. v. Miele, 407 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). . Ferrante v. Waters, 383 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). . Johnson v. Landmark First Natl Bank, 415 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). . Hart v. Weaver, 364 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). . See, e.g., Johnson v. Landmark First Nat'l Bank, supra; Ferrante v. Waters, supra. . See, e.g., Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Parham v. Kohler, 134 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). . Appellant’s counsel…
-
Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…stantiate such a finding. We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. Hart v. Weaver, 364 So. 2d 524 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifferen…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Travelers Ins. Co. & Peter Vassey v. Rodriguez, 357 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)