Friday Frivolity: What Is the Proper Sanction for Lying to the Court About a Brain Tumor?

On Fridays, we try to go a bit lighter, or at least we stretch the boundaries of what counts as contracts law. The case involves the rights to two show horses. The defendants in the case are three corporate entities and Eric Lamaze, a Canadian who won three Olympic medals in equestrian events. Plaintiffs alleged a fraudulent scheme to overcharge for the horses and pocket the difference, as well as an unauthorized sale of one of the horses. Plaintiffs sought to pierce the corporate veils to get to Mr. Lamaze. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were dissipating the assets and thus sought prejudgment writs of attachment and garnishment, which the trial court granted. Defendants sought to have the writs dissolved on various grounds, including Mr. Lamaze’s claim that he had to travel to Belgium for brain surgery and could not do so as his assets had been frozen.

In February 2023, the trial court heard the defendants’ motion and granted them on grounds not related to Mr. Lamaze’s testimony about his medical condition. Procedural maneuvers occupied the parties until August 10, when another hearing took place. Because there was a pending motion on the dissolution of the writs, that dissolution was stayed pending the re-hearing. At that hearing, Mr. Lamaze’s attorney reported that his client had had successful brain surgery on August 9th. Less than two weeks later, the attorney withdrew, citing irreconcilable differences with his client.

In September, plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ pleadings and sought other relief because Mr. Lamaze had perpetrated a fraud upon the court. They alleged that Mr. Lamaze had misrepresented his medical condition and had presented a forged letter from a Belgian doctor. Mr. Lamaze conceded that the letter was false, although he had had two surgeries related to throat cancer. He was desperate because his accounts were frozen, and he could barely feed his horses or himself. The trial court allowed Mr. Lamaze’s attorney to withdraw, granted the motions to strike the pleadings, and entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

In Lamaze v. Guthrie, Florida’s District Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit considered Defendants’ appeal. Defendants argued that the default judgment at the same proceeding at which the trial court allowed defendants’ counsel to withdraw amounted to a denial of due process, and the Court of Appeal agreed.

As to the corporate defendants, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in striking their pleadings without giving them sufficient time to find new counsel. Even though they had notice that their attorney was seeking to withdraw, that lawyer had sought a thirty-day continuance that would run from the grant his motion to withdraw. The corporate defendants were entitled to that time.

Unlike his corporate co-defendants, Mr. Lamaze could have chosen to proceed pro se. However, the proper procedure is to stay proceedings to allow a defendant whose attorney has withdrawn to find new counsel. Mr. Lamaze was unrepresented at the hearing that proceeded after his attorney withdrew. At that hearing, plaintiffs’ exhibits were admitted without opposition, even though some of them were hearsay. There was no emergency. Writs remained in place, so no assets were in danger of dissipation. Plaintiffs are not prejudiced by the reinstatement of the case.

Chief Judge Klingensmith concurred to note that, even a serious fraud on the court, such as this one, only merits dismissal of the suit if the fraud goes to the substance of this action. Mr. Lamaze’s fraud did not. He was not engaged in dilatory tactics — he was trying to get a hearing on the writs as soon as possible.