Preudhomme v. Bailey
211 So. 3d 127
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Arlene Preudhomme filed a pro se complaint (fraudulent conveyance, conversion, unjust enrichment, accounting) in Jan 2015 seeking to enforce awards/judgments from her 2010 dissolution of marriage.
- Her complaint attached property-transfer exhibits and referenced prior dissolution orders but did not attach the initial final judgment or partial disbursement order from the dissolution proceedings.
- The former husband and multiple co-defendants moved to dismiss, arguing legal insufficiency, sham pleading, res judicata/collateral estoppel, statute of limitations, lack of final money judgment, and sought attorney’s fees.
- The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice (order silent as to reasoning); two remaining defendants later were allowed amendment but all others remained dismissed with prejudice.
- Appellant appealed the dismissal with prejudice and separately challenged the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees (the latter portion of the appeal was dismissed as premature).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper without leave to amend | Preudhomme: dismissal improper because complaint had not been amended and she should have been given leave to amend | Defendants: complaint legally insufficient; amendment would be futile or is harassment | Court: Dismissal with prejudice improper; plaintiff entitled to opportunity to amend absent clear futility or prejudice |
| Whether dismissal could be imposed as a sanction without Kozel findings | Preudhomme: court erred by not applying Kozel factors and making written findings before dismissal as a sanction | Defendants: dismissal appropriate as sanction for sham or frivolous pleading | Court: Sanction dismissal improper without Kozel findings; court must make explicit factual findings when imposing dismissal as sanction |
| Whether complaint was a sham pleading under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.150 | Preudhomme: pleading not palpably false and defendants failed to identify any inherently false allegations | Defendants: complaint is conclusory/sham and legally insufficient | Court: Motions failed to show allegations were palpably or inherently false; sham-pleading dismissal improper |
| Whether res judicata / collateral estoppel or statute of limitations justified dismissal | Preudhomme: those defenses are affirmative and cannot be resolved on face of complaint; statute of limitations does not plainly bar claims | Defendants: prior dissolution rulings and time bars preclude suit | Court: On the four corners, those defenses were not established; some dissolution orders referenced in motions were beyond the complaint and could not justify dismissal; statute of limitations not shown on face of complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (court must analyze Kozel factors and make written findings before dismissing as a sanction)
- Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (appellate court will affirm a ruling if any theory in the record supports it)
- Garnac Grain Co., Inc. v. Mejia, 962 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (standard of review for dismissals with prejudice is de novo)
- Bornstein v. Marcus, 169 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (definition and standard for identifying a sham pleading)
- Norwich v. Glob. Fin. Assocs., LLC, 882 So.2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (res judicata/collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses unless apparent on face of complaint)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (on motion to dismiss, court must accept complaint allegations as true and view inferences in plaintiff’s favor)
- Bennett ex rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (discussing requirement for explicit findings when dismissing as sanction)
- West v. West, 126 So.3d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (wrong-division filing should normally prompt transfer rather than dismissal)