Duran v. Lapin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duran v. Lapin

971 So. 2d 913, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19720, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2935

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2007

DocketNo. 3D07-1512

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 971 So. 2d 913 (Duran v. Lapin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duran v. Lapin, 971 So. 2d 913, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19720, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2935 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order striking the appellant’s pleadings. Trial courts have discretion to strike a party’s pleadings or dismiss claims for fraud on the court. See Rios v. Moore, 902 So.2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Storm v. Allied Universal Corp., 842 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The record before us does not support the appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order striking the appellant’s pleadings. Trial courts have discretion to strike a party’s pleadings or dismiss claims for fraud on the court. See Rios v. Moore, 902 So.2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Storm v. Allied Universal Corp., 842 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The record before us does not support the appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

971 So. 2d 913, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19720, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duran-v-lapin-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack