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

186 So. 3d 629
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 29, 2016
Docket5D15-486
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 So. 3d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-ramzeys-corrected-3716-fladistctapp-2016.