Middleton v. Hager, 179 So. 3d 529

On Sept. 23, 2011, Middleton was a passenger in a vehicle rear-ended by a tractor-trailer driven by Hager; she sued Hager (and later his employer Martin‑Brower) for neck, back and nerve injuries allegedly caused by that accident.
During discovery Middleton repeatedly denied prior accidents, pre‑existing neck/back pain, prior specialist visits, prior imaging, prior numbness, and prior physical therapy.
Defendants moved to dismiss for fraud on the court after evidence showed Middleton had a 2004 head‑on collision and subsequent emergency treatment, neurologist visits, abnormal nerve studies and MRI, and physical therapy shortly before the 2011 collision.
A general magistrate found Middleton’s discovery answers were false and not due to poor memory, but recommended denying dismissal and awarding attorney’s fees because the magistrate concluded the defendants had not proven a deliberate scheme by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial court rejected the magistrate’s legal conclusion, held the magistrate’s factual findings were supported by competent substantial evidence, determined those facts established a deliberate scheme to subvert the judicial process, and dismissed Middleton’s complaint with prejudice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court correctly treated the magistrate’s factual findings as binding and properly concluded dismissal was warranted as the legal effect of those findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted for fraud upon the court	Middleton argued her omissions were memory lapses/confusion and not a deliberate scheme; magistrate accepted this as to sanction severity	Defendants argued Middleton’s repeated false sworn statements about prior accidents and treatment were deliberate and central to causation/damages, warranting dismissal	Court held the magistrate’s factual findings showed deliberate misconduct; dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction
Whether the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the magistrate	Middleton argued the trial court reweighed evidence and substituted its credibility determinations for the magistrate	Defendants argued the trial court properly reviewed legal effect of the magistrate’s facts — not the facts themselves	Court held the trial court did not reweigh facts; it accepted the magistrate’s factual findings and properly determined their legal effect (deliberate scheme)
Standard of review when a magistrate issues findings	Middleton urged deference to magistrate’s recommendation denying dismissal	Defendants urged that the trial court could review legal conclusions and impose appropriate sanction	Court reiterated that trial court must accept magistrate’s factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence but may review and correct legal conclusions; applied narrowed abuse of discretion for dismissal sanction

Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (party who commits fraud on the court should not be allowed to continue suit)
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (trial court has inherent authority to dismiss for fraud; dismissal is drastic and for egregious misconduct)
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989) (courts must balance adjudication on merits against maintaining integrity of judicial process)
Williams v. Miami‑Dade Cnty. Public Health Trust, 17 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (narrowed abuse of discretion when sanction is dismissal)
Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (dismissal must be well‑supported by evidence)
Papadopoulos v. Cruise Ventures Three Corp., 974 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (courts will not disturb findings where fraud or collusion is clearly shown)
Cerase v. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (trial court reviewing magistrate acts in an appellate role; limited to checking factual support and legal errors)
Storm v. Allied Universal Corp., 842 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (cases where perjury or pervasive fraud required dismissal)
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (dismissal appropriate for litigant misconduct)
Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (supporting authority for dismissal for fraud on the court)