Vista St. Lucie Ass'n v. Dellatore
165 So. 3d 731
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- A condominium association sued co-trustees of a trust over mold remediation reimbursement in a two-count complaint.
- Co-trustees served discovery requests; association sought extensions and was late in responding, prompting motions to compel.
- Trial court issued a discovery order on July 11, 2011, and later dismissed the complaint with prejudice and awarded attorney’s fees against the association.
- Association moved for rehearing arguing failure to conduct the required six-factor Kozel v. Ostendorf analysis and blaming counsel for noncompliance.
- After delay, association sought a case management conference; trial court refused, and ultimately denied rehearing.
- Court reverses, remands for Kozel-based analysis and potential less-severe sanctions, and vacates the fee award for lack of proper findings and testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kozel six-factor analysis was required for dismissal | Association argues Kozel factors were not considered. | Co-trustees contend Kozel does not apply or dismissal was appropriate. | Remanded for Kozel-based consideration; reversal of dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper under the facts | Dismissal is too severe given undisputed facts and lack of proper Kozel analysis. | Association’s noncompliance warranted dismissal. | Reversal of dismissal; reinstatement and potential lesser sanction on remand. |
| Whether the attorney’s fees award lacked required findings | Fees should be vacated due to lack of hours, rate, and expert testimony findings. | Fees were proper under the rules. | Fees award reversed for lack of express hours, rate findings, and expert testimony. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not addressing counsel fault in noncompliance | Fault lies with association’s counsel; sanctions should reflect this. | Conduct by association justified sanctions. | Remand allowing consideration of fault and potentially a lesser sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993) (six-factor test for sanctions; need explicit findings)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla.2004) (affirmed remand when not applying correct standard)
- Bennett ex rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (emphasizes express Kozel-factor consideration and sanctions framework)
- Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCabe, 763 So.2d 505 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) (attorney’s fees require hours, rate, and expert support)
- DeMello v. Buckman, 991 So.2d 907 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (three-strike rule for fee awards; caution against improper awards)
- Heritage Circle Condo. Ass’n v. State, Dept. of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, Div. of Condos., Timeshares & Mobile Homes, 121 So.3d 1141 (Fla.4th DCA 2013) (requires explicit Kozel-factor analysis in sanctions context)