DANIA HERNANDEZ
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB
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.
A trial court's decision to impose sanctions for discovery violations is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.
[1] The striking of pleadings or entry of default for noncompliance with a discovery order is the most severe sanction available and should be employed only in extreme circum…
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“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion.”
Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004)
Dania Hernandez appealed a sanctions order imposed by the trial court in a case against Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. The sanctions were impos…
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 Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 14, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1955 Lower Tribunal No. 13-30875-CA-01 ________________
Dania Hernandez, Appellant,
vs.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, for appellant.
Law Offices of Manganelli, Leider & Savio, P.A., and Melisa Manganelli (Boca Raton), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion.”); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (“We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.”) (internal citations omitted); Green v. Mann, 420 So. 3d 501, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“The trial court’s order delineated the Kozel factors, made the requisite findings, and the record supports such findings.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- HAM v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004)
- Green v. Mann, 420 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)