Buroz-Henriquez v. De Buroz, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 3271354 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct 14, 2009)
It’s not unusual in probate litigation for parties to underestimate the importance of complying with discovery deadlines. However, this frustrating fact of life is also an opportunity: I recently won a case simply by obtaining an ex parte order compelling a recalcitrant will-challenger to respond to my pending discovery requests. For reasons that remain unclear to me, this bit of pressure was enough to get this guy out of the case: he voluntarily withdrew his claim with prejudice in lieu of complying with my discovery order. The basis for my order was a local rule applicable in Miami (Admin. Order 06-09), but the underlying authority should be applicable anywhere in Florida.
In the linked-to case the winning side used a discovery-sanctions order to not only default the sitting personal representative out the estate, they also walked away with an order compelling the estate to pay $25,875 in attorneys fees. All that just because the losing side couldn’t get its act together when it came to responding to discovery deadlines.
Lesson learned? Use an opponent’s recalcitrance to your advantage. Push him to respond to discovery deadlines by relying on the kind of authority cited in Admin. Order 06-09; and once you’ve got your first order — follow the example of the winning side in the linked-to case: move for a default judgment and other sanctions if it’s ignored.
In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA explains what kind of findings need to be included in a probate judge’s order defaulting an opponent out of a case as a discovery sanction. The order in this case didn’t contain the necessary findings, so it got bounced back to the trial judge for a "do over."
It is well established that before a court may dismiss a cause or default a party as a sanction, it must first consider each of the following six factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993):
 whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience;  whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned;  whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience;  whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion;  whether the attorney offered reasonable justification for noncompliance; and  whether the delay created significant problems of judicial administration.
Accord Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla.2004). Moreover, before a trial court enters the extreme sanction of dismissal or default, it must set forth explicit findings of fact in the order imposing the sanction. Alvarado v. Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So.3d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding dismissal for findings on all six Kozel factors); Coconut Grove Playhouse, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 935 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quashing order tantamount to default and remanding for trial court to make express findings). “Express findings are required to ensure that the trial judge has consciously determined that the failure was more than a mistake, neglect, or inadvertence, and to assist the reviewing court to the extent the record is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” Ham, 891 So.2d at 496 (citing Commonwealth Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990)).
Because the order on appeal contains no findings of fact concerning any of the Kozel factors, we are compelled to reverse the order and remand for consideration of the Kozel factors. In doing so, we do not address the merits of the underlying claims for contempt and sanctions made by the appellee below. If, on remand, the trial court determines that, after considering the Kozel factors, sanctions of dismissal and/or default are appropriate, then the trial court shall include in its order findings of fact with respect to each factor. See Alvarado, 8 So.3d at 389.