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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 2007·No. No. 3D07-1512·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

971 So. 2d 913 (Duran v. Lapin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related