Yanks v. Amerifirst Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yanks v. Amerifirst Bank

569 So. 2d 496, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7614, 1990 WL 149804

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

DocketNo. 90-760

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 569 So. 2d 496 (Yanks v. Amerifirst Bank) 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

Yanks v. Amerifirst Bank, 569 So. 2d 496, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7614, 1990 WL 149804 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Jack Yanks, Ruth Yanks, and Universal Property Management Corp., appeal a trial court order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for violation of discovery orders. The record reveals that appellants were tardy in complying with two trial court orders compelling discovery. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint on such ground where appellees, Amerifirst Bank and Michael Levinson, failed, to demonstrate that they were prejudiced in any meaningful way by the appellants’ tardiness. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987); Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). It is well-settled that the severity of the sanction must be commensurate with the violation. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d at 296; Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d at 564.

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including the imposition of any appropriate lesser sanctions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Jack Yanks, Ruth Yanks, and Universal Property Management Corp., appeal a trial court order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for violation of discovery orders. The record reveals that appellants were tardy in complying with two trial court orders compelling discovery. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint on such ground where appellees, Amerifirst Bank and Michael Levinson, failed, to demonstrate that they were prejudiced in any meaningful way by the appellants’ tardiness. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987); Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). It is well-settled that the severity of the sanction must be commensurate with the violation. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d at 296; Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d at 564.

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including the imposition of any appropriate lesser sanctions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 So. 2d 496, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7614, 1990 WL 149804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanks-v-amerifirst-bank-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack