Deutsche Bank v. Sombrero Beach Road
260 So. 3d 424 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When considering dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for an attorney's misconduct, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and make express written findings of fact for each of the six factors established in Kozel v. Ostendorf to ensure the sanction is not unjustly punishing the client for the attorney's errors.
Facts:
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company held a residential mortgage on real property located in Monroe County, which was the subject of a foreclosure action.
- The trial court scheduled a mandatory pre-trial conference for September 15, 2016.
- Neither a representative from Deutsche Bank nor its trial counsel attended the pre-trial conference.
- Deutsche Bank's law firm submitted an affidavit stating that the failure to appear was due to a clerical error within the firm, specifically a failure to enter the conference date into its internal case management system.
Procedural Posture:
- Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against Sombrero Beach Road, LLC in the Circuit Court for Monroe County, a state trial court.
- The trial court ordered the parties and their counsel to attend a mandatory pre-trial conference.
- Following the failure of Deutsche Bank's counsel to appear, a special master recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
- The trial court, without a hearing, entered an order ratifying the special master's recommendation and a separate order providing additional grounds for dismissal based on a pattern of non-compliance.
- The trial court entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice.
- The trial court denied Deutsche Bank's motion for rehearing, which argued that the court failed to hold a hearing or apply the Kozel test.
- Deutsche Bank, as appellant, appealed the final order of dismissal to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by dismissing a case with prejudice as a sanction for an attorney's failure to attend a mandatory pre-trial conference without first holding an evidentiary hearing and making express findings of fact under the six-factor Kozel test?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A trial court's dismissal of a case with prejudice for an attorney's misconduct is improper without first conducting an evidentiary hearing and making express findings of fact concerning each of the six factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf. The court reasoned that dismissal with prejudice is the most severe sanction and should be reserved for extreme circumstances. The Kozel test is designed to protect a party from being overly punished for the errors of their counsel by requiring the trial court to analyze whether the attorney's disobedience was willful, whether the client was personally involved, and whether the opposing party was prejudiced, among other factors. Because the trial court did not hold a hearing or make the required express findings for each factor, it failed to apply the correct legal standard, necessitating a reversal and remand for the proper analysis to be conducted.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high procedural bar for imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice based on attorney misconduct in Florida. It solidifies the Kozel analysis as a mandatory, non-discretionary step, requiring trial courts to create a detailed record with express findings for each of the six factors. This precedent protects clients from losing their day in court due to their counsel's neglect, unless the misconduct is willful, the client is complicit, or other Kozel factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. The ruling ensures that the state's preference for deciding cases on their merits is upheld and provides a clear standard for appellate review of such sanctions.
