Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

291 So. 2d 92

Docket No. 73-405.

Horjales v. Loeb

Aquilino HORJALES, Appellant, v. Jan Gilbert LOEB et al., Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-02-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[o]ne who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a lawsuit.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 760 So. 2d 228 - Cabrerizo v. Fortune Intern. Realty, 723 So. 2d 892 - Hanono v. Murphy

Relies on 49 So. 2d 848 - Ashwood v. Patterson · Kansas City Operating Corp. v. Durwood

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-02-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2009

12 state decisions

401974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*93 Michael M. Tobin and Richard H.W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellant.

¶2Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Steven R. Berger, Horton & Perse and Arnold Ginsberg, Hawkesworth, Kay & Schmick, Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for appellees.

¶3Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

¶4PEARSON, Judge.

¶5This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendants. The single point presented: "Whether the lower court erred in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the defendants based upon a determination of an issue of fact, to wit: Whether the plaintiff and the defendant Martinez colluded".

¶6The point presented has two aspects. First, did the facts before the court warrant a finding of collusion. Second, does the court have the right to dismiss a cause with prejudice when collusion appears between the plaintiff and a principal defendant. We answer both questions in the affirmative.

¶7The court's finding that the plaintiff was guilty of collusion with the defendant Martinez was based upon the fact that the plaintiff admitted that he had given sworn testimony material to the issue of liability in another court proceeding, which testimony was exactly contrary to his sworn testimony in the instant cause. The present defendant was defendant in the prior case and the testimony as changed would make possible the collection upon an insurance liability policy. In the absence of explanation which was not offered, it would appear that the plaintiff was guilty of perjury in one of the cases. In view of the admissions of the plaintiff and the claimed basis for liability of the defendants, we hold that the record supports the court's finding.

¶8Under these circumstances, the trial court had the right to dismiss the plaintiff's case. One who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a law suit. See Ashwood v. Patterson, Fla. 1951, 49 So.2d 848; Kansas City Operating Corporation v. Durwood, 278 F.2d 354 (8th Cir.1960). We think that the facts established collusion as a basis for the suit.

¶9Affirmed.

/291/so2d/92 · .json · Public domain