Case Name: Jack YANKS and Ruth Yanks, his wife, and Universal Property Management Corp., Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST BANK, a Federal Savings Bank, and Michael Levinson, jointly, severally and individually, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-10-09
Citations: 569 So. 2d 496
Docket Number: No. 90-760
Parties: Jack YANKS and Ruth Yanks, his wife, and Universal Property Management Corp., Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST BANK, a Federal Savings Bank, and Michael Levinson, jointly, severally and individually, Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 569
Pages: 496–496

Head Matter:
Jack YANKS and Ruth Yanks, his wife, and Universal Property Management Corp., Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST BANK, a Federal Savings Bank, and Michael Levinson, jointly, severally and individually, Appellees.
No. 90-760.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 9, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1990.
Charles L. Neustein, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Blackwell & Walker, and Daniel J. Kis-sane, Miami, for appellee Amerifirst.
Ponzoli & Wassenberg, and Ronald P. Ponzoli, Miami, for appellee Michael Levin-son.
Before BARKDULL, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Jack Yanks, Ruth Yanks, and Universal Property Management Corp., appeal a trial court order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for violation of discovery orders. The record reveals that appellants were tardy in complying with two trial court orders compelling discovery. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint on such ground where appellees, Amerifirst Bank and Michael Levinson, failed, to demonstrate that they were prejudiced in any meaningful way by the appellants' tardiness. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d 294 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987); Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). It is well-settled that the severity of the sanction must be commensurate with the violation. Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So.2d at 296; Summit Chase Condominium Association, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d at 564.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including the imposition of any appropriate lesser sanctions.