Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 23, 2018 by admin

Torts — Dismissal with prejudice — Fraud on court — Evidence did not support trial court’s finding that plaintiff committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose that he had suffered injuries in a prior automobile accident and by giving false testimony — Remand for trial court to reconsider whether remaining findings cumulatively support conclusion that plaintiff committed fraud on the court

43
Fla. L. Weekly D401a

Torts
— Dismissal with prejudice — Fraud on court — Evidence did not support trial
court’s finding that plaintiff committed fraud on the court by failing to
disclose that he had suffered injuries in a prior automobile accident and by
giving false testimony — Remand for trial court to reconsider whether
remaining findings cumulatively support conclusion that plaintiff committed
fraud on the court — Appeals — Order finding entitlement to attorney’s fees
is not appealable where amount of fees was not set — Appellate court lacks
jurisdiction of portion of appeal challenging trial court’s decision to refer
plaintiff to state attorney’s office to investigate whether plaintiff committed
perjury, and to refer plaintiff’s counsel to Professional Ethics Committee of
The Florida Bar

ROGER NIEHAUS, Appellant, v. DENNIS
E. DIXON AND TINA M. NIEHAUS, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D17-470.
Opinion filed February 16, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam
County, Scott C. DuPont, Judge. Counsel: R. Kevin Sharbaugh, of Keyser &
Sharbaugh, P.A., Interlachen, for Appellant. Zachery Lucas Keller, of Keller
Legal, Palatka, for Appellee, Dennis E. Dixon. No Appearance for Appellee, Tina
M. Niehaus.
ON
APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
[Original Opinion at 43 Fla. L. Weekly D81a]
(LAMBERT, J.) We deny Appellee,
Dennis Dixon’s, motion for clarification1 of our December 29, 2017 opinion.
Nevertheless, on our own motion and unrelated to any matters raised in Dixon’s
motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and issue the following
opinion in its stead.
Roger Niehaus appeals the final
order dismissing his negligence action with prejudice as a sanction for
committing fraud upon the court. In its order, the trial court found eight
separate instances where it concluded that Niehaus made “false statements” or
committed acts of intentional concealment. Because we hold that at least two of
these findings were not supported by competent substantial evidence, we reverse
the final order and remand for the trial court to reconsider whether the
remaining findings in its order cumulatively support its conclusion that
Niehaus committed a fraud upon the court.
Niehaus filed suit against Dixon,
alleging that Dixon negligently struck him in the head with the wing of an
airplane that Dixon was operating, resulting in personal injury and damages to
Niehaus. Dixon denied the allegations, instead asserting that as he was
attempting to taxi the plane off the runway, Niehaus ran toward the aircraft,
slammed his fist into the right wing of the plane, and then fell to the ground,
exclaiming that Dixon had struck him with the aircraft. The parties thereafter
engaged in fairly contentious litigation over the next three years, culminating
in Dixon filing a motion to dismiss Niehaus’s complaint for fraud upon the
court based upon Niehaus’s: (1) failing to disclose that he had been in an
automobile accident resulting in injuries ten months earlier, (2) repeatedly
lying during his deposition, and (3) intentionally concealing pertinent medical
history from his retained expert. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing
on this motion and rendered the final order now under review.
Fraud upon the court is where “a
party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to
interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter
by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke,
706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)). A dismissal for fraud upon the court must
be supported by clear and convincing evidence, Gautreaux v. Maya, 112
So. 3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing Perrine v. Henderson, 85 So.
3d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)), and because such a dismissal with prejudice
is an extreme remedy that sounds the “death knell of a lawsuit,” trial courts
are reminded that they should use the power of dismissal cautiously, sparingly,
and only where a party’s conduct is egregious. Cox, 706 So. 2d at 46.
On appeal, a trial court’s findings
of fact upon which it bases a dismissal for fraud upon the court will be upheld
if they are supported by competent substantial evidence. See T.S. ex rel.
D.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams.
, 969 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA
2007) (stating that a trial court’s findings of fact pursuant to the clear and
convincing evidence burden of proof are reviewed under the competent
substantial evidence appellate standard of review (citing N.L. v. Dep’t of
Child. & Fam. Servs.
, 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003))). While
the trial court’s conclusion that a fraud upon the court has occurred and its
decision to dismiss the case with prejudice are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion, appellate courts employ a more scrupulous and less deferential
abuse of discretion standard in such cases to account for the heightened “clear
and convincing” evidentiary burden and the gravity of the sanction. See
Gautreaux
, 112 So. 3d at 149 (quoting Suarez v. Benihana Nat’l of Fla.
Corp.
, 88 So. 3d 349, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)); see also Jimenez v.
Ortega
, 179 So. 3d 483, 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[A] more stringent abuse
of discretion standard is appropriate [in reviewing a dismissal for fraud upon
the court] because dismissal is an extreme remedy.” (quoting Jacob v.
Henderson
, 840 So. 2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003))).
In the first ground justifying
dismissal for fraud upon the court, the trial court found that Niehaus did not
disclose that he had suffered injuries from a car accident ten months earlier.
The court erred in this finding because Niehaus did, in fact, provide pertinent
information and records about this accident when requested, but had not
disclosed this information earlier because Dixon admittedly did not ask Niehaus
about prior injuries or accidents in his initial discovery. Niehaus was under
no obligation to voluntarily provide records or other information prior to
being asked by Dixon.
In the eighth ground found by the
court for dismissal, the court concluded that Niehaus’s testimony at the
hearing on his motion was fraudulent. Niehaus was presented with two
photographs taken on different days that Dixon argued evidenced Niehaus’s
ability to work on airplanes, allegedly contradicting Niehaus’s claim that he
could no longer work on planes. In response, Niehaus testified that one photo
showed him working on a plane and the second appeared to show that he was
sitting on a stool taking a break but that he “probably” had been working on a
plane. Niehaus further explained that he was still physically able to work on planes;
however, due to problems with his memory, he would not be able to pursue
obtaining a license in airplane maintenance but could work on airplanes if
supervised. The court commented that the second photo appeared to show Niehaus
working on a plane, to which Niehaus testified that it looked as if he was
“looking for a screw or something in a screw can.” The court then concluded
that Niehaus had changed his testimony in response to the court’s comment and
that this “false testimony” constituted fraud upon the court under the standard
described in Cox. We disagree. Assuming that Niehaus’s comment in
response to the trial court was a “change” in testimony, we find that the court
abused its discretion as this testimony did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate
fraud.
Finally, although we have concern
about whether some of the remaining six grounds found by the court in its final
order would individually qualify as evidence of fraud upon the court, we
believe that the analysis of whether these six grounds cumulatively qualify for
the extraordinary remedy of dismissal with prejudice is initially best left to
the trial court. In doing so, we are mindful of the trial court’s finding in
its order that any one of the false statements made by Niehaus would warrant
dismissal. Having reviewed the record, we disagree with the trial court that if
Niehaus had only made one of the “false” statements described in the final
order that dismissal would be warranted under Cox and its progeny.
We also dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
that part of the appeal challenging the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees
to Dixon because, while the trial court found that Dixon is entitled to
attorney’s fees, it did not set an amount. See Mills v. Martinez, 909
So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that an order determining
entitlement to attorney’s fees was not a final order despite being included in
a final judgment because “[a]n award of attorneys’ fees does not become final,
and, therefore, appealable until the amount is set by the trial court” (citing Sanders
v. Palmieri
, 849 So. 2d 417, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003))). We further dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction that part of the appeal challenging the trial court’s
decision to refer Niehaus to the State Attorney’s Office of the Seventh
Judicial Circuit to investigate whether Niehaus committed perjury in the
circuit court proceedings,2 and to refer Niehaus’s counsel,
Timothy Keyser, to the “Professional Ethics Committee of The Florida Bar for
investigation into his actions in the course of this litigation.”
Accordingly, we reverse the final
order of dismissal with prejudice and remand for the trial court to reconsider
and re-evaluate whether the remaining six findings in its order cumulatively
support dismissal with prejudice for fraud upon the court. We dismiss those
parts of the appeal challenging the referral of Niehaus to the State Attorney’s
Office of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, the referral of his counsel to The
Florida Bar, and the award of attorney’s fees to Dixon without setting an
amount.
REVERSED in part; DISMISSED in part;
and REMANDED. (COHEN, C.J., and PALMER, J., concur.)
__________________
1Contrary to his inference stated in
his motion, Appellee is not the prevailing party in this appeal. We reversed
the final order under review with directions that the trial court re-evaluate
the remaining grounds and reconsider whether, in light of the opinion, the
remedy of dismissal with prejudice is still appropriate. Contrary to Appellee’s
belief, the opinion does not “implicitly” find that dismissal 
remains
appropriate nor does it otherwise indicate to the trial court that it should
again so determine.
2At oral argument, Niehaus’s counsel
suggested that this issue may be moot.
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982