COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., AND DELVERT CAMPFIELD, 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 trial court erred in dismissing appellant's cause of action as a sanction without first applying the Kozel factors to determine whether dismissal was appropriate.
A trial court must apply the Kozel factors before dismissing a case as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order.
[1] Before dismissing a case as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and apply the Kozel factors to determine…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[F]ailure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard.”
Court explaining the legal standard for dismissal as a sanction
Collins Asset Group failed to comply with the trial court's Order Requiring Answer Regarding Deficiency and Setting Case Management Hearing, and the t…
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 Kozel Factors For Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court erred in failing to consider the factors articulated in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), prior to dismissing Appellant’s cause of action as a sanction for its failure to abide by the court’s “Order Requiring Answer Regarding Deficiency and Setting Case Management Hearing.” BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ellison, 141 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Mem.) (citing Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2004) (“[Fjailure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard.”)); see also Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass'n v. Wild, 164 So.3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing order dismissing foreclosure complaint without prejudice due to non-compliance with an order setting trial because findings of fact were not entered as required by Kozel); BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. v. Parrish, 146 So.3d 526, 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Just as in [BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. ]Ellison, before dismissing Appellant’s case, the trial should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine [under Kozel ] whether counsel’s failure to appear was a willful violation of the court’s order"). For this reason, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its order of dismissal after properly applying the Kozel factors.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carolann D. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993)
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Wild, 164 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. v. Parrish, 146 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Fla. Wildlife Fed'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 141 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ellison, 141 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)