Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16

186 So. 3d 629
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 29, 2016·No. 5D15-486·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Colleen Griffith and her attorney, Patrick J. Deese, appeal the trial court’s order assessing attorney’s fees against them under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4). We affirm.

Griffith, on Deese’s advice, refused to answer a deposition question, asserting that the question was irrelevant and an improper hypothetical. On appeal, Griffith and Deese claim that the trial court, improperly sanctioned them without making the findings required by Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993). We- disagree. Kozel applies when the trial court dismisses a case or claim, enters a default, or strikes pleadings as a sanction. It does not apply when expenses are assessed, as here, under rule 1.380(a)(4).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16, 186 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

186 So. 3d 629 (Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DESMOND F. BALLARD AND NILES B. WHITTEN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A.
249 So. 3d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)