353 So.3d 689
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- 8660 purchased property in August 2017 and assumed an elevator-maintenance contract that Oracle (plaintiff) had with the prior owner; 8660 contested the contract’s legibility and attempted to renegotiate or cancel.
- Oracle sued 8660 for breach, attaching an allegedly illegible copy of the maintenance agreement; 8660 counterclaimed for negligent elevator maintenance.
- Throughout discovery Oracle repeatedly failed to produce a legible contract; it later filed a “legible” version (Aug. 27, 2020) that 8660 contended was fabricated by pasting pages from a different contract.
- Oracle’s records custodian later testified the legible contract had been in Oracle’s Tampa office the whole time and then (in deposition) authenticated the Aug. 27, 2020 filing as a true copy; Oracle also filed affidavits the court found false and missed multiple discovery orders.
- 8660 moved to strike Oracle’s complaint for fraud on the court and for fees; after an evidentiary hearing at which Oracle presented no evidence or opposition, the trial court found fabrication, perjury, and discovery abuse, struck Oracle’s pleadings with prejudice, and reserved fee amounts.
- The appellate court affirmed under the narrowed abuse-of-discretion standard, concluding the record showed clear-and-convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme to interfere with adjudication and justifying dismissal and fee relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking Oracle’s pleadings for fraud on the court | Dismissal is too severe / court erred (Oracle offered no record rebuttal) | Clear-and-convincing evidence of fabrication, perjury, and discovery misconduct warrants dismissal | Affirmed: narrowed abuse-of-discretion standard; dismissal proper where court found fabrication and perjury affecting a dispositive issue |
| Whether the contract filed Aug. 27, 2020 was fabricated and falsely authenticated | Oracle did not meaningfully contest the fabrication allegations in the record | 8660 presented side-by-side comparisons and testimony asserting the Aug. 27 filing was a contrived document | Trial court found the Aug. 27 contract was fabricated and Oracle’s corporate rep gave false testimony authenticating it |
| Whether discovery violations and false affidavits justify dismissal and fee awards | Sanctions excessive / Oracle did not rebut in hearing or file response | Oracle violated multiple discovery orders and submitted false affidavits aimed at avoiding sanctions and defeating summary judgment | Trial court concluded the misconduct was central to the litigation, justified dismissal with prejudice, and entitlement to attorney’s fees; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- ICMFG & Associates, Inc. v. Bare Board Group, Inc., 238 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (fabrication of evidence can warrant dismissal)
- Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (describing narrowed abuse-of-discretion review for dismissal as fraud on the court)
- Suarez v. Benihana Nat’l of Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (heightened clear-and-convincing standard for fraud-on-the-court dismissals)
- Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (party seeking dismissal for fraud bears burden to prove an unconscionable scheme that interferes with adjudication)
- Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989) (framework for fraud on the court: improper influence on trier of fact or hampering presentation of opposing party’s case)