FELICETTI LAW FIRM, PLLC
v.
ANTONIO DE JESUS, TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND KENNETH MICHAEL TAYLOR
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 abuses its discretion when it strikes a charging lien as a sanction without making written factual findings about the sanctionable conduct and without considering whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate.
[1] When imposing sanctions, a trial court must make written factual findings supporting the sanction and must consider whether lesser sanctions than dismissal or striking of…
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“if a sanction less than dismissal is a viable alternative, the lesser sanction should be employed”
Court citing Kozel v. Ostendorf, citing the principle that ultimate sanctions should only be imposed when lesser alternatives are not available.
Felicetti Law Firm, a former counsel for De Jesus, had asserted a charging lien. The trial court granted De Jesus's motion to strike the lien and deem…
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 Charging Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
WOZNIAK, J.
The Felicetti Law Firm, PLLC (“the Firm”), former counsel for Appellee Antonio De Jesus, appeals the order granting De Jesus’s motion to strike the charging lien and deeming the lien waived as a sanction for the Firm’s counsel’s actions. The Firm argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in striking its charging lien where no sanctionable conduct occurred and, even if a sanction were appropriate, the ultimate sanction of dismissal was too severe. Because no factual findings were made to support the sanction, and because the record does not support the sanction imposed, we must reverse. See Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993) (listing factors to be considered, including whether counsel’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, in determining whether dismissal is warranted; observing that if a sanction less than dismissal is a viable alternative, the lesser sanction should be employed). In light of the conduct at issue, we remand to the trial court to consider whether lesser sanctions— or any sanctions—are appropriate; any sanctions imposed must be supported by written factual findings.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.