Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16
This text of 186 So. 3d 629 (Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
186 So. 3d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-ramzeys-corrected-3716-fladistctapp-2016.