Case Name: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellant, v. Timothy M. CLARK; Sanctuary At Redfish Condominium Association, Inc; Exquisite Builders, LLC; Beach Community Bank; Unknown Occupant # 1; Unknown Occupant # 2; Unknown Spouse of Timothy M. Clark, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-02-02
Citations: 183 So. 3d 1271
Docket Number: No. 1D15-2250
Parties: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellant, v. Timothy M. CLARK; Sanctuary At Redfish Condominium Association, Inc; Exquisite Builders, LLC; Beach Community Bank; Unknown Occupant # 1; Unknown Occupant # 2; Unknown Spouse of Timothy M. Clark, Appellees.
Judges: ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; THOMAS, J., specially concurring with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 183
Pages: 1271–1272

Head Matter:
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellant, v. Timothy M. CLARK; Sanctuary At Redfish Condominium Association, Inc; Exquisite Builders, LLC; Beach Community Bank; Unknown Occupant # 1; Unknown Occupant # 2; Unknown Spouse of Timothy M. Clark, Appellees.
No. 1D15-2250.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 2, 2016.
David W. Rodstein of Padula Hodkin, PLLC, Boca Raton, for Appellant.
John Cottle of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee, Sanctuary at Rédfish Condominium Association, Inc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed appellant's foreclosure claim with prejudice as a sanction for counsel's discovery violations without making explicit written findings .pursuant to Kozel v. Ostendoyf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993). We agree and. reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the six factors outlined in Kozel and whether a sanction less severe than dismissal with prejudice is a viable alternative in light of those factors. If, after considering these factors, the trial court concludes that the conduct of appellant and/or its counsel warrants dismissal of the action-with prejudice, the court shall enter an order containing explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to each of the six Kozel factors and with respect to the determination that no less severe sanction would be a viable alternative under .the circumstances. See Smith v. City of Panama. City, 951 So.2d 959, 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur; THOMAS, J., specially concurring with opinion.