Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). · Go Syfert
Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cabrerizo v. Fortune Intern. Realty (fladistctapp, 2000-05-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cabrerizo v. Fortune Intern. Realty
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
one who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a lawsuit.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hanono v. Murphy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
one who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a lawsuit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS In Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), this Court restated the well-settled principle "that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends." Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Carter v. Carter, 88 So.2d 153 , 157 (Fla.1956); Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So.2d 848, 850 (Fla.1951); Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Alderman,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Breezevale Ltd. v. Dickinson (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. · 2000 · confidence medium
Reports Reprint 1120, 1121)); sea also Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974) (“One who engages in a fraudulent scheme loses all right to the prosecution of a lawsuit.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
It is well-settled law "that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends." Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)( citing Carter v. Carter, 88 So.2d 153 , 157 (Fla.1956); Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So.2d 848, 850 (Fla.1951); Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Alderman, 698 So.2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review dismissed, 703 So.2d 476 (Fla.1997); Mendez v. Blanco, 665 So.2d 1149 (F…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Palm Court, Inc. v. Durham
Fla. Cir. Ct. · 1991 · confidence medium
For example, it has been said that “[o]ne who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a law suit.” Horjales v Loeb, 291 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." French-Hesch v. French-Williams
N.M. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Kaiser v. Thomson, 55 N.M. 270, 274 , 232 P.2d 142, 144 (1951) (“It is a well settled rule of law that a person cannot maintain an action if, in order to establish his cause of action, he must rely, in whole or in part, on an illegal or immoral act or transaction to which he is a party, or where he must base his cause of action, in whole or in part, on a violation by himself of the criminal or penal laws.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Horjales v. Loeb, 291 So.2d 92, 93 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974) (holding that the circuit court had a right to dismiss the plaint…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Aquilino HORJALES, Appellant,
v.
Jan Gilbert LOEB et al., Appellees.
73-405.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 26, 1974.
291 So. 2d 92
Pearson, Hendry and Haverfield.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

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

Carey, 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.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

This 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".

The 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.

The 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.

Under 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.

Affirmed.