Dania Hernandez v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 14, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1955
Lower Tribunal No. 13-30875-CA-01
________________
Dania Hernandez ,
Appellant,
vs.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio
Arzola, Judge.
David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, for appellant.
Law Offices of Manganelli, Leider & Savio, P.A., and Melisa Manganelli
(Boca Raton), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
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.”).