CHESS v. SWEENEY (2022)

Appellant Stanley D. Chess appeals the trial court's order granting monetary sanctions for fraud on the court in favor of Appellees Edmund J. Sweeney; Edmund Sweeney Jr.; Leslie Sweeney; Martin Fiascone; Robert Fiascone; Sandy Fiascone; Fiascone Family Limited Partnership; Pullman Financial Group, LLC; Benjamin Schwartz; Robert Schwartz; and Eric T. Sigler. Because this Court previously held that Appellees failed to establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence, see Chess v. Sweeney, 325 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Chess I”), we reverse and remand the monetary sanctions on the same basis.¹ See also Hernandez v. City of Miami, 35 So. 3d 942, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Fraud on the court occurs where there is clear and convincing evidence ‘that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.’ ” (quoting Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008))).

Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In Chess I, Chess appealed the trial court's order dismissing his complaint for fraud on the court, which also granted entitlement to monetary sanctions. While that appeal was pending, the trial court awarded the monetary sanctions at issue here. Both the dismissal and the monetary sanctions were granted for fraud on the court.

PER CURIAM.