In Jiang v. Tri-Coumty Repairs LLC, Case No. 2022-010631-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 16, 2026), a cellphone video recording of a conversation between plaintiff and defendant was held not protected from use as evidence by Florida Security of Communications Act, as the Court found the plaintiff did not have s subjective expectation that the conversation was not being intercepted where his statements reveal that he was aware of possibility that he was being recorded. Specifically, the plaintiff stated in the recording “Even you record me, you have no permission…so it’s not going to bring to the judge.” The Court found that any expectation would not be objectively reasonable where conversation between the parties took place while plaintiff was on porch of multi-tenant residence and defendant was standing in a driveway plainly visible and accessible to third parties.
Why would a plaintiff fight so hard to keep the recording out? Because he was facing a motion for sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 57.105. The Court found that the case required dismissal to preserve the integrity of the Court where plaintiff's recorded statements revealed an attempt to coerce the defendant not to defend lawsuit so as to enable plaintiff to obtain an insurance recovery and an offer of payout for potential settlement proceeds from the defendant's insurer. The plaintiff stated , inter alia, the following: “…If I win the case, you lose the case, I collect $700,000 from the insurance company…I’m thinking about two options. Either let me win the case and I give you some money back. Or for this case, you take your company to bankruptcy, and I give you the money back…let me win the case and give you some money back…”
The Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to characterize the discussion as a settlement discussion but rather “a coercive attempt to induce Defendant’s non-participation in the litigation so plaintiff could obtain an insurance recovery.” The Court went further and noted “that dismissal for fraud on the court is warranted even where a party may have some legitimate basis for a claim.” The Court considered lesser sanctions and found that they would be inadequate to address the severity of plaintiff’s misconduct and preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
It is difficult to have a motion for fraud on the court granted in Florida. It appears that a recording or some other solid third-party evidence is required to make such a motion stick. Certainly, if this was not fraud on the court, then it is hard to see what would be. If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision, please reach out to me by email at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.