Cossio v. Arrondo
53 So. 3d 1141
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Alejandra Cossio and Luis Alejo Arrondo formed an oral 50/50 partnership to invest in South Florida real estate, contributing equal capital and sharing profits and losses.
- Between 2003 and 2005, the partnership acquired nine properties; six were sold by trial, with no formal bookkeeping and commingled personal and partnership accounts.
- Arrondo filed suit in 2007 to dissolve the partnership, seek an accounting, and claimed he contributed more capital and that Cossio took unauthorized commissions.
- Cossio counterclaimed for equitable accounting, fiduciary breach, and constructive fraud, alleging misappropriation of partnership funds by Arrondo.
- In 2009, after counsel turnover issues, the trial court sanctioned Cossio by precluding witnesses and documents, based on an order directed at the defense’s counsel.
- At trial, Arrondo presented multiple witnesses; Cossio testified without the ability to offer documentary or expert corroboration due to the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the sanction commensurate with the offense? | Cossio argues the sanction punished her for counsel's failures, not her own. | Arrondo argues the court properly enforced the pretrial order to ensure compliance. | No; sanction was excessive and not commensurate with the offense. |
| Did the sanction violate due process or equity by precluding documentary and expert evidence? | Cossio contends the ruling prevented presentation of key documentary evidence and expert testimony. | Arrondo contends the order appropriately limited evidence as sanction for noncompliance. | Yes; the sanction effectively denied Cossio a full opportunity to present her case. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Brinson, 685 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (sanctions must be commensurate with the offense)
- Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983) (willfulness and disregard justify severe sanctions)
- Kamhi v. Waterview Towers Condo. Ass'n, 793 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (sanctions can be severe but must be proportionate)
- Taylor v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 934 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (sanctions must be commensurate with the offense; not punishing for counsel's fault)
- Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. Deco Natural Stone, Inc., 827 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (sanctions improper when out of proportion to alleged misconduct)