Mullins v. Moneyham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullins v. Moneyham

861 So. 2d 108, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19557, 2003 WL 23005675

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-3802

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 861 So. 2d 108 (Mullins v. Moneyham) 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

Mullins v. Moneyham, 861 So. 2d 108, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19557, 2003 WL 23005675 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Jerry R. Mullins, Jr. and Gulf Coast Cattle Services, Inc., appeal the final judgment entered against them in favor of appellee, Waymon Moneyham. The trial court entered an order striking appellants’ pleadings and entered a default judgment against appellants as sanctions for appellants’ failure to timely comply with its order compelling discovery. Because the trial court failed to make an express written finding that appellants’ conduct was a willful or deliberate violation of its order compelling discovery, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We are required to reverse the final judgment because the order imposing sanctions failed to contain the necessary express findings of willfulness required when this ultimate sanction is imposed. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990). The record may certainly support a finding that appellants willfully failed to comply with the trial court's order compelling discovery. On remand, the trial court may, if deemed necessary, conduct an evi-dentiary hearing for the limited purpose of having appellants present evidence of any mitigating or extenuating circumstances demonstrating that their noncompliance was not deliberate or willful. See Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). If the trial court determines the sanctions were justified and makes the express findings required by Tubero, it is authorized to reinstate the order striking appellants’ pleadings and the final judgment. Id.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Jerry R. Mullins, Jr. and Gulf Coast Cattle Services, Inc., appeal the final judgment entered against them in favor of appellee, Waymon Moneyham. The trial court entered an order striking appellants’ pleadings and entered a default judgment against appellants as sanctions for appellants’ failure to timely comply with its order compelling discovery. Because the trial court failed to make an express written finding that appellants’ conduct was a willful or deliberate violation of its order compelling discovery, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We are required to reverse the final judgment because the order imposing sanctions failed to contain the necessary express findings of willfulness required when this ultimate sanction is imposed. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990). The record may certainly support a finding that appellants willfully failed to comply with the trial court's order compelling discovery. On remand, the trial court may, if deemed necessary, conduct an evi-dentiary hearing for the limited purpose of having appellants present evidence of any mitigating or extenuating circumstances demonstrating that their noncompliance was not deliberate or willful. See Harper-Elder v. Elder, 701 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). If the trial court determines the sanctions were justified and makes the express findings required by Tubero, it is authorized to reinstate the order striking appellants’ pleadings and the final judgment. Id.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 108, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19557, 2003 WL 23005675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-moneyham-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack