Garvin v. Tidwell
126 So. 3d 1224
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant appeals a denial of rescission of a mediated settlement on discovery grounds.
- Appellee owned a horse (Buster) and boarded him at a stable; appellant rode him after assurances of non-dangerous behavior.
- During discovery, appellee provided names and photos but did not disclose statements or documents due to work-product objections.
- A 2010 mediation settled the case; after settlement, appellant received a magazine advertisement showing Buster and Ex Stress, a calming supplement.
- The Ex Stress ad and related facts were not disclosed in discovery or depositions; appellee and daughter acknowledged possession and use.
- The trial court denied rescission and sanctions, enforcing the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee’s discovery violations justify rescission of the mediated settlement. | McManus contends discovery omissions were material to the case. | Appellee argues omissions were not responsive or inconsistent with testimony. | Yes; discovery violations supported rescission. |
| Whether Stamato two-prong test supports rescission based on unilateral mistake. | McManus asserts lack of knowledge due to appellee’s omissions constitutes mistake. | Appellee asserts no excusable neglect and no inequitable reliance. | Yes; Stamato test satisfied; trial court abused discretion in denying rescission. |
| Whether unconscionability and sanctions issues were properly handled. | Unconscionability not preserved; discovery sanctions not properly sought. | Sanctions not warranted without a motion to compel. | Unconscionability not preserved; sanctions claim rejected as to remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1970) (discovery promotes settlement and prevents surprise)
- Summit Chase Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (best efforts to comply with discovery requests)
- Herold v. Computer Components Int’l, Inc., 252 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (incomplete answers can warrant sanctions or penalties)
- Smith v. University Medical Center, Inc., 559 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (failure to disclose material information violates discovery duties)
- Schlapper v. Maurer, 687 So.2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (truthful disclosure required; misrepresentation risks prejudice)
- Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (oath to tell truth emphasized; sanctions and discovery relevance)