
    Aviad VISOLY, Appellant, v. KLUGER, PERETZ, KAPLAN & BERLIN, P.A., and Alan J. Kluger, and Howard D. Dobosar, Appellees.
    No. 97-1485.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 1, 1998.
    Aviad P. Visoly, in proper person.
    
      Rumberger-Kirk & Caldwell, and Joshua D. Lerner, and Joseph M. Maus, Miami, for appellees.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice for appellant’s failure to timely comply with a court order directing appellant to retain new counsel after his prior counsel was permitted to withdraw or file a written notice of his intention to proceed pro se. We reverse the order under review where there was no finding by the lower court or record evidence-to suggest that appellant’s failure to comply with this order was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the court’s authority. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990); K & K World Enter., Inc. v. Union SPOL, S.R.O., 692 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 3d-DCA 1997). Because the striking of a parties’ pleadings is the most extreme sanction, a trial court is required to make an express determination as to whether the offending party’s actions were willful or deliberate. See Commonwealth, 569 So.2d at 1273 (“By insisting upon a finding of willfulness, there will be the added assurance that the trial judge has made a conscious determination that the noncompliance was more than mere neglect or inadvertence.”); Onyx Fin. Group, Inc. v. International Waste Sys., Inc., 619 So.2d 1036, 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Carr v. Dean Steel Bldgs., Inc., 619 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Carillon Corp. v. Devick, 554 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). An offending party’s mere noneomplianee with a court order is insufficient in and of itself to evince wilfulness. See K & K, 692 So.2d at 1002.

Reversed.  