85 So. 3d 1210
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Perrine appeals an order dismissing his fraud-on-the-court action in favor of Henderson and Swell Construction.
- Trial court found Perrine made numerous material misrepresentations about medical history and current injuries, which were central to the case.
- The court dismissed as a sanction under the fraud-on-the-court doctrine after two hearings.
- Florida Fifth District applies Cox v. Burke's test requiring clear and convincing evidence of a scheme to disrupt the judicial process.
- Dismissal is an extreme sanction to be reserved for egregious misconduct; misconduct short of that is not automatic grounds for dismissal.
- Appellate court affirmed, concluding the record showed substantial misrepresentations and the trial court did not abuse discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for fraud on the court was proper | Perrine argues the dismissal was an abuse of discretion. | Henderson/Swell contend Perrine's misrepresentations were clear and central, justifying dismissal. | Yes; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wenwei Sun v. Aviles, 53 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (fraud-on-the-court sanctions reserved for extreme cases)
- Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (sanctions and caution against overreaching fraud findings)
- Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (test for fraud-on-the-court includes an unconscionable scheme to interfere with proceedings)
- Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (clear and convincing evidence needed for fraud-related dismissal)
- Granados v. Zehr, 979 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (caution in using harsh sanctions to preserve integrity of proceedings)
- Gehrmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (misconduct less than fraud may be dealt with by cross-examination and other remedies)