Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC.
226 So. 3d 1053
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2013 Landry bought a 2004 Dodge Durango from Charlotte Motor Cars; later she was told the odometer had been rolled back. The vehicle was repossessed by United Auto Credit in late 2014.
- Landry sued Charlotte Motor Cars and its insurer in January 2015 alleging odometer fraud; she amended her complaint in May 2016.
- On May 17, 2016, defendants sent a preservation/inspection request; Landry’s counsel replied that she no longer had the vehicle because it had been repossessed.
- Defendants moved for spoliation sanctions; a non-evidentiary hearing occurred July 18, 2016 (no testimony or exhibits were introduced).
- The trial court found Landry lacked the vehicle, breached a preservation duty, and dismissed her case as a sanction; Landry moved for rehearing asserting the vehicle still existed and had an active title.
- The Second District reversed, holding defendants failed to prove the vehicle was lost or spoliated and remanded for further proceedings and essential discovery before any evidentiary sanctions hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Landry's Argument | Dealership's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repossession constituted "spoliation" or "loss" of evidence | Repossession does not equal spoliation; vehicle still exists and was not destroyed or altered | Repossession meant Landry no longer had possession and thus spoliated evidence | Repossession alone, without evidence vehicle was destroyed or unlocatable, does not establish spoliation; defendants presented no admissible evidence proving loss |
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction absent bad faith | Dismissal was too harsh and premature; no evidentiary hearing or essential discovery had occurred | Dismissal is justified by alleged denial of ability to inspect the vehicle | Court held dismissal was improper here; harsh sanctions require proof of willfulness/bad faith and evidence that loss fatally prejudiced defense |
| Burden/elements for imposing spoliation sanctions | Plaintiff argued three-part inquiry must be met and absence of proof here defeats sanctions | Defendants argued the three-part inquiry was satisfied because the vehicle was not in plaintiff's control | Court reaffirmed threefold test: (1) evidence existed, (2) duty to preserve, (3) evidence crucial to opposing party; defendants failed to satisfy element showing evidence was lost or that prejudice was fatal |
| Need for discovery before weighing expert opinions on prejudice | Landry argued she had not had opportunity to depose defendants’ expert and discovery was incomplete | Defendants relied on late-filed expert affidavit at the non-evidentiary hearing | Court directed that essential discovery occur and expert opinions be tested before any evidentiary hearing or sanctions ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So.3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (non‑evidentiary hearing transcript not always required for appellate review)
- Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So.3d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (procedural standards for appellate review of non‑evidentiary hearings)
- Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (abuse of discretion review for spoliation dismissal)
- Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So.3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (three‑part test for spoliation sanctions)
- Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V., 795 So.2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (definitions of spoliation and preservation duties)
- League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2015) (sanctions may be appropriate for lost or spoliated evidence)
- Fleury v. Biomet, Inc., 865 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (sanction proportionality; dismissal reserved for cases of willfulness or fatal prejudice)
- Reed v. Alpha Prof'l Tools, 975 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (spoliation not automatic; movant must show prejudice and opportunity to test expert opinions)
- Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (application of the three‑part spoliation inquiry)