HERNANDEZ v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dania HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, Appellee.

No. 3D24-1955

Decided: January 14, 2026

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, Coral Gables, for appellant. Law Offices of Manganelli, Leider & Savio, P.A., and Melisa Manganelli (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Affirmed. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion.”); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (“We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.”) (internal citations omitted); Green v. Mann, 420 So. 3d 501, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“The trial court's order delineated the Kozel factors, made the requisite findings, and the record supports such findings.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network