BARRY SEGALL AND EDWARD SEGALL, APPELLANTS,
v.
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATES, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The appellants Segall appealed a money judgment against them, but the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the appellants willfully evaded discovery in aid of execution. The court granted the motion to dismiss based on the appellants' persistent defiance of trial court discovery orders, finding dismissal to be an appropriate sanction under Florida law.
Dismissal of the appeal is an appropriate sanction for the appellants' persistent and egregious defiance of trial court discovery orders. The appellants' limited subsequent compliance does not excuse or substantially remedy their earlier dereliction of duty to comply with court orders.
[1] A court may dismiss an appeal as a sanction for a party's willful evasion of discovery in aid of execution.
[2] A party's partial compliance with discovery orders after a period of defiance does not cure earlier dereliction and insulate them from sanctions.
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“It appears without doubt that appellants have persistently defied previous trial court orders which allowed them sufficient time and opportunity to purge themselves of contempt. The conduct is clearly more egregious than that which prompted an involuntary dismissal in Davidson v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 501 So.2d 603 (Fla.1987).”
Establishes the court's finding that the appellants' conduct was particularly egregious and warranted dismissal as a sanction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued three separate orders (June 23, July 28, and August 18, 1988) requiring the appellants to produce documents and submit to disco…
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 Discovery In Aid Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an unsuperseded money judgment. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the claim that the appellants had willfully evaded discovery in aid of execution. A determination of appel-lees’ motion to dismiss was deferred until oral argument on the merits of the appeal set for October 24, 1988, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Following oral argument, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to ascertain appellants’ previous compliance with its orders.
In a written order containing findings, the trial court again concluded that the appellants were in defiance of its previous discovery orders. In brief, the trial court, on three separate occasions (June 23, 1988, July 28, 1988, and August 18, 1988), ordered appellants to produce various documents and submit to various discovery procedures in aid of appellees’ discovery for execution.
Additionally, the trial court, on August 30, 1988, adjudged appellants in contempt of court with the opportunity to purge upon compliance.
On September 26, 1988, the trial court reaffirmed its previous adjudication of contempt of appellants and afforded them sufficient time to purge at any time by compliance with the extent discovery orders. An appeal from the contempt order has been voluntarily dismissed.
Following the lodging of the trial court’s findings with this court, appellants moved for leave to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, which was granted. By subsequent order, their response time was enlarged.
We now have the benefit of the appellants’ brief in opposition to the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal, appellees’ answer brief, and appellants’ reply brief. It appears without doubt that appellants have persistently defied previous trial court orders which allowed them sufficient time and opportunity to purge themselves of contempt. The conduct is clearly more egregious than that which prompted an involuntary dismissal in Davidson v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 501 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1987).
There has been some compliance with discovery orders since we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court. This cannot relieve appellants of their earlier dereliction, but assuming that it does, it nonetheless does not constitute substantial compliance with the earlier orders of the trial court. The stipulation executed October 21, 1988, staying all nonparty discovery in New Jersey until resolution of the merits of the appeal cannot insulate appellants from their personal defiance of the trial court’s discovery orders.
We conclude under the holding of Davidson v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District that dismissal of this case is indeed an appropriate sanction. For this reason, the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal from the circuit court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, case number 84-46002-CA(16) is hereby dismissed.