Griffith v. Ramzey's - corrected 3/7/16
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- DESMOND F. BALLARD AND NILES B. WHITTEN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Colleen Griffith and her attorney, Patrick J. Deese, appeal the trial court’s order assessing attorney’s fees against them under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4). We affirm.
Griffith, on Deese’s advice, refused to answer a deposition question, asserting that the question was irrelevant and an improper hypothetical. On appeal, Griffith and Deese claim that the trial court, improperly sanctioned them without making the findings required by Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993). We- disagree. Kozel applies when the trial court dismisses a case or claim, enters a default, or strikes pleadings as a sanction. It does not apply when expenses are assessed, as here, under rule 1.380(a)(4).
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.