JAMES R. GEORGES AND KAREN GEORGES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
INSURANCE TECHNICIANS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants challenged an order imposing sanctions, striking pleadings, and entering a default judgment against them for failure to comply with discovery orders and court-ordered production deadlines. The appellate court affirmed the sanctions, finding the trial court's factual findings regarding appellants' non-compliance, misrepresentations, and abuse of the litigation process were adequately supported by the record.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that appellants failed to demonstrate reversible error and that the trial court's carefully prepared order and factual findings adequately supported the sanctions imposed.
[1] An order denying a motion to vacate a default judgment is appealable.
[2] A trial court may strike pleadings and enter a default as a sanction for non-compliance with discovery orders.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Defendants have embarked upon and traveled down a path of intentional delay and abuse of the system in clear violation of the Orders of this Court validly entered on December 21, 1982 and February 24, 1983.”
Trial court's finding justifying the imposition of sanctions for appellants' willful non-compliance and abuse of the litigation process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Insurance Technicians, Inc. sued appellants to recover unpaid insurance premiums. Appellee filed a request for production of documents. Appel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misrepresentation To Court cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellants seek review of an order denying a motion to grant relief from an order striking pleadings and denying a motion to vacate a default. The order denying a motion to vacate is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii); Silva v. Pedro Realty, Inc., 411 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1982).
Appellee, Insurance Technicians, Inc., sued appellants to recover the balance due from appellants for unpaid insurance premiums on insurance policies that appel-lee had procured for appellants. During the course of the litigation appellee filed a request for production of documents. On the last day of the time for production appellants filed a motion for a ninety day extension within which to comply. After a hearing on said motion, the trial court granted appellants an additional thirty days to produce. The new time for production came and went without any production or additional extension of time. Appellees then filed a motion for sanctions, which was heard on February 24, 1983. The trial court gave appellants ten additional days to produce the subject material. When production was not timely forthcoming a new motion for sanctions was filed. At the hearing on said motion on March 16, 1983, counsel for appellee advised the court that appellants’ counsel would not attend due to a conflict but that counsel objected to imposition of any sanctions. On March 18, 1983, the trial court entered an order in which it found that appellants had not complied with two court orders for production; that appellants had made misrepresentations to the court; that some pleadings were evasive and incomplete and generally there was an absence of good faith on the part of appellants. In fact, the court found that “Defendants have embarked upon and traveled down a path of intentional delay and abuse of the system in clear violation of the Orders of this Court validly entered on December 21, 1982 and February 24, 1983.”
We have seriously considered all of appellants’ contentions relative to the March 16, 1983, hearing which they did not attend and find little support in the record for them. On the other hand, the carefully prepared order of the trial court granting sanctions and entering a default against appellants makes findings of fact that adequately support the action taken.
Accordingly, appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error which requires that we affirm the order appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and HERSEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Info. Servs., Inc. v. Jannach, 569 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ear at a properly noticed hearing, and why it did not respond to discovery over a period of two and a half years, contrary to five orders requiring such. See Gomez v. Pujols, 546 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Akers v. Corbett, 138 Fla. 730, 190 So. 28 (1939); F.A. Chastain Construction, Inc. v. Pratt, 146 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Cushman v. Schubert, 110 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). Therefore, the orders under review be…
-
Weck v. Weck, 464 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…o rule 1.380(b)(2)(C), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is an appropriate response by the court to “intentional delay and abuse of the system” by willful refusal to comply with orders pertaining to discovery, Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983). HERSEY, WALDEN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.…
-
J.T.R., Inc. v. Ahmed El Hadri, 632 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Ethier, 411 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1982)