PNC Bank, NA v. Duque
137 So. 3d 476
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Homeowners defaulted on a loan and the bank sued to foreclose.
- Homeowners served multiple discovery requests, then moved to strike the bank’s pleadings and seek sanctions under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380, alleging willful noncompliance with court discovery orders and prejudice to their defense.
- Bank responded that homeowners’ discovery practice was dilatory, denied bad faith, and argued dismissal with prejudice requires consideration of Kozel factors.
- Trial court held two hearings, found the bank (a sophisticated lender with experienced counsel) willfully disobeyed discovery orders, found prejudice, and dismissed the foreclosure complaint (reserving fees).
- Bank moved to reinstate and for rehearing; trial court denied relief. Bank appealed, arguing dismissal for discovery violations was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper for discovery noncompliance | Homeowners: bank’s conduct was willful, deliberate, contumacious and prejudiced their defense; dismissal appropriate | Bank: homeowners’ discovery was dilatory; sanctions should follow Kozel factors and be proportional; dismissal excessive | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by failing to make specific Kozel findings and by imposing the ultimate sanction where lesser sanctions were not shown to have been considered |
| Whether the trial court adequately considered Kozel factors | Homeowners: court considered factors and found willfulness, prejudice, no justification | Bank: court’s order lacked detailed, specific findings for each Kozel factor | Court’s order recited consideration but lacked specific findings as required; reversal required |
| Whether client (bank) vs. counsel fault was shown | Homeowners: bank (sophisticated lender) bore responsibility | Bank: evidence did not show bank personally caused violations; issues caused by discovery disputes and homeowners’ conduct | Record did not establish bank itself was at fault; treating bank culpably unsupported |
| Whether prejudice and judicial-administration harm were established | Homeowners: plaintiffs were prejudiced and case management harmed | Bank: homeowners suffered no demonstrated prejudice; requests were confusing and cumulative | Court’s findings of prejudice and administration harm unsupported by record; dismissal disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (sets six-factor test for dismissal as a discovery sanction)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1990) (standard of review for dismissal for discovery noncompliance)
- Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983) (Rule 1.380 sanctions promote orderly movement of litigation)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2004) (ultimate sanction warranted only after protracted discovery abuses and patent prejudice; sanctions must be proportional)
- Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So.2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversal where trial court failed to make required Kozel factual findings)
- Heritage Circle Condo. Ass’n v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, Div. of Condos., Timeshares & Mobile Homes, 121 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (court must expressly consider Kozel factors)