PER CURIAM. The trial court erred in failing to consider the factors articulated in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), prior to dismissing Appellant’s cause of action as a sanction for its failure to abide by the court’s “Order Requiring Answer Regarding Deficiency and Setting Case Management Hearing.” BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ellison, 141 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Mem.) (citing Ham v.
Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 500 (Fla. 2004) (“[Fjailure to consider the Kozel factors in determining whether dismissal was appropriate is, by itself, a basis for remand for application of the correct standard.”)); see also Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass'n v. Wild, 164 So.3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing order dismissing foreclosure complaint without prejudice due to non-compliance with an order setting trial because findings of fact were not entered as required by Kozel); BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P. v.
Parrish, 146 So.3d 526, 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Just as in [BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. ]Ellison, before dismissing Appellant’s case, the trial should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine [under Kozel ] whether counsel’s failure to appear was a willful violation of the court’s order"). For this reason, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its order of dismissal after properly applying the Kozel factors. REVERSED and REMANDED. WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.