Ledo v. Seavie Resources, LLC
149 So. 3d 707
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Seavie Resources, LLC sued David Ledo on a $165,000 promissory note and moved to foreclose the mortgage.
- Ledo (through counsel) initially answered and asserted one affirmative defense (unclean hands); Seavie served interrogatories on the same day.
- Counsel moved to withdraw citing irreconcilable differences; the court granted withdrawal and ordered Ledo to retain counsel or notify the court he would proceed pro se within 30 days, warning that failure could lead to sanctions including striking pleadings.
- Ledo repeatedly failed to answer Seavie’s interrogatories despite an agreed extension and a later court order requiring answers and imposing a $500 sanction; the November order warned that further noncompliance would result in striking pleadings.
- On December 12, the trial court struck Ledo’s pleadings and entered liability; Ledo later filed bankruptcy (staying a summary-judgment hearing), the bankruptcy was dismissed, Ledo’s later counterclaim was stricken, and summary judgment entered for Seavie.
- Ledo appealed, arguing the striking of pleadings (and resulting liability) required express written findings under Kozel/Ham; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking Ledo’s pleadings for discovery noncompliance was proper | Seavie: striking was authorized after repeated orders and direct warnings; sanction was warranted for willful noncompliance | Ledo: court erred because December 12 order lacked express written findings required by Kozel/Ham when imposing the ultimate sanction | Affirmed: sanction was within discretion because the record clearly showed willful, deliberate disregard of court orders, making additional written findings unnecessary here |
| Whether Kozel’s written-findings requirement applies when sanctioning a pro se party for personal misconduct | Seavie: Kozel addresses attorney conduct; where a pro se litigant personally violates orders, Mercer/Ham standard governs and findings may be unnecessary if record is clear | Ledo: Kozel/Ham required express findings before striking pleadings and entering liability | Held: Kozel focused on attorney-attributed failures; here the Mercer/Ham framework applies and record was not susceptible to another interpretation, so failure to include written findings was not reversible error |
| Whether Ledo’s later counterclaim should be permitted after pleadings were previously stricken | Seavie: counterclaim must be struck because liability already determined by order striking pleadings | Ledo: counterclaim alleged fraud/usury and other defenses that could defeat foreclosure | Held: Counterclaim properly struck as pleadings had been stricken and liability determined against Ledo |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (requires express findings when dismissal/sanction attributable to counsel to ensure failure was more than inadvertence)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004) (clarifies interplay of Kozel and Mercer standards; sanctions review committed to trial court discretion)
- Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983) (striking pleadings is the most severe sanction; justified for deliberate, contumacious disregard of court authority)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (requires written findings when dismissal/sanction equates to willfulness or deliberate disregard)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (articulates reasonableness test for appellate review of discretionary trial-court decisions)
- Toll v. Korge, 127 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (distinguishable: reversal where record did not show whether dilatory conduct was attributable to party or counsel and no evidentiary hearing was held)