Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Cagigas
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5942
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company appeals a trial court order dismissing its complaint with prejudice as a sanction for misconduct.
- The dispute involves mortgage-backed notes from AAMES Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-4; plaintiffs include Aisa Cagigas et al. appearing for the defendants.
- The Third District applies Kozel v. Ostendorf’s six-factor standard for sanctions and requires express findings.
- The trial court’s order lacks express Kozel-factor findings and so cannot stand as a sanction decision.
- The court reverses and remands for explicit consideration of the Kozel factors, with written factual findings if dismissal remains appropriate on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for misconduct required Kozel-factor findings | Deutsche Bank argues Kozel factors must be examined | Cagigas et al. contend dismissal was proper | Yes; reversed and remanded for Kozel-factor findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (six-factor test for sanctions; express findings required)
- Buroz-Henriquez v. De Buroz, 19 So.3d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (requires express findings addressing each Kozel factor)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2004) (supports need for express factual findings)
- Arkiteknic, Inc. v. United Glass Laminating, Inc., 53 So.3d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (noted in Kozel framework)
- Alvarado v. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So.3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (emphasizes express findings in sanctions context)
- Hawthorne v. Wesley, 82 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (related sanctions standards cited by court)