Dorothy Chappelle, Calvin Johnson and Evelyn Williams v. South Florida Guardianship Program, Inc.
169 So. 3d 291
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ward received substantial assets via her husband’s lottery winnings placed in a marital trust; her son (the guardian) was co-trustee and later appointed emergency temporary and plenary guardian.
- In 2007 the guardian sued the ward’s sisters (Dorothy and Evelyn), nephew (Calvin), daughter, and niece for elder exploitation, fraud, and undue influence; the sisters and nephew answered pro se.
- The trial court entered a judicial default against Dorothy, Evelyn, and Calvin in February 2012 after finding failures to respond to discovery, missed court-ordered mediation, and failure to appear at calendar call; monetary sanctions had been previously imposed.
- Defendants (through various counsel) moved repeatedly to set aside the default, arguing prior counsel’s oversight caused failures to appear and that the court should apply Kozel factors before imposing such a severe sanction.
- The trial court denied reconsideration motions (one order referenced Kozel but did not make explicit findings on each factor), held hearings on damages, and entered a final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding the trial court failed to apply and expressly find on the Kozel factors before entering a judicial default and remanded for consideration of appropriate sanctions; compensatory and punitive awards were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lawfully entered judicial default without explicit Kozel findings | Guardian: Default was warranted because defendants (not just counsel) repeatedly disobeyed orders and the court considered Kozel in later order | Defendants: Court failed to apply Kozel before default and must hold evidentiary hearing considering counsel’s misconduct | Reversed — court failed to consider Kozel factors prior to default and did not make explicit findings; remand required |
| Whether misconduct of prior counsel excuses client default and how it affects Kozel analysis | Guardian: Sanction targeted defendants’ misconduct, not only counsel’s | Defendants: Prior counsel’s willful failures caused the violations and Kozel requires assessment of counsel’s conduct | Court held counsel contributed to misconduct; where counsel is involved Kozel analysis is required before dismissal/default |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before entering default sanction | Guardian: Two evidentiary hearings occurred and Kozel was considered in denying a later motion | Defendants: Kozel factors must be considered before imposing the ultimate sanction, with opportunity for hearing | Court found no adequate pre-default Kozel consideration; an evidentiary hearing before dismissal-level sanction is required where counsel’s conduct is implicated |
| Effect on damages and final judgment when default is reversed | Guardian: Defendants raised no separate challenge to damages for some defendants | Defendants: Default invalidation requires vacatur of liability-based damages | Court reversed final judgment and vacated compensatory and punitive awards pending proper Kozel analysis and any new sanction determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (sets six-factor test required before dismissal/default sanctions)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004) (failure to apply Kozel is reversible error)
- Bennett ex rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary’s, Inc., 67 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Kozel factors required and dismissal should be last resort)
- Toll v. Korge, 127 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (default as sanction treated like dismissal; Kozel applies)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (willfulness/deliberate disregard standard for dismissal-level sanctions)