53 So. 3d 1075
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Sun, Xu, and Sun (minor) filed suit for personal injuries and consortium claims after Sun's car crash.
- Trial court dismissed the action as a sanction for fraud on the court due to repeated lies about Sun's capacity to work and function.
- Appellants admitted they knew they must provide truthful answers yet repeatedly lied during discovery.
- Lies spanned six years and were told to appellants' own lawyers, experts, and appellees, obstructing defense.
- Court recognized fraud-on-the-court dismissal is an extreme sanction and must be used cautiously and only for extreme misconduct.
- Florida appellate court affirmed, emphasizing extreme deceit and interference with the judicial process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for fraud on the court was proper. | Sun argued conduct not extreme; lower court erred. | Aviles/Irizarry contended fraud on the court warranted dismissal. | Yes, affirmed dismissal as appropriate. |
| What standard proves fraud on the court. | Clear and convincing standard required. | Standard met by deceit and scheme. | Clear and convincing standard applied. |
| Was the deceit egregious enough to justify dismissal. | Deceit less than extreme; remedies via cross-examination. | Misconduct was extreme and systemic. | Deceit was extreme; dismissal upheld. |
| Can misconduct be cured by cross-examination instead of dismissal. | Discrepancies resolved through cross-examination. | Systematic deceit warrants dismissal. | Dismissal appropriate; cross-examination not sufficient here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (trial court may dismiss for fraud on the court; serious sanction)
- Granados v. Zehr, 979 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (dismissal for fraud only in extreme cases; balancing policy)
- Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (fraud on the court requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (fraud on the court defined; requires strong showing)
- Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989) (recognizes unconscionable scheme to interfere with judiciary)
- Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (discovery misconduct managed through cross-examination; not always dismissal)