EUGENE C. HEIMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA HEIMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eugene Heiman appeals an order requiring him to produce financial records and answer interrogatories regarding his child support obligations. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that because the case seeks declaratory judgment interpretation of a settlement agreement rather than modification based on changed financial circumstances, discovery of Heiman's financial status is improperly broad.
Because the action is in the nature of an application for declaratory judgment rather than a request for reduction in child support based on changed financial status, Heiman's financial status does not fall within the scope of discovery permitted under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280. The discovery order must be reversed.
[1] Discovery regarding a party's financial status is not permissible in an action seeking a declaratory judgment to construe a settlement agreement.
[2] An action seeking a declaratory judgment to construe a settlement agreement is distinct from a request for a reduction in child support based on a change in financial sta…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The action being in the nature of an application for a declaratory judgment rather than a request for a reduction in child support payments based upon a change in financial status, Mr. Heiman's financial status does not fall within the scope of discovery permitted under Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280.”
States the controlling legal principle that determines the proper scope of discovery based on the nature of the claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1965, a final judgment incorporated a settlement agreement requiring Eugene Heiman to pay $30 weekly child support per son (later increased to $75 …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Support cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Chief Judge.
Petitioner, Eugene Heiman, appeals an order overruling his objections to requests for production and written interrogatories made by his former wife, Barbara, in a dispute over required amount of child support payments.
We conclude that appellant in essence is seeking a judicial determination as to whether under the terms of a settlement agreement he is still obligated to pay Barbara the weekly support for one of his sons while at the same time paying for that son’s college expenses, including room, board and clothing.
In 1965 a final judgment was entered terminating the marriage between Eugene and Barbara Heiman. The judgment incorporated a settlement agreement which in pertinent part provided $30 weekly as child support for each of their two minor sons, Daniel and Gary; that Eugene was to be responsible for all costs and expenses of college education for the boys. Over the years the support payments were increased by modification decrees to $75 weekly per child. In the fall of 1977 Daniel enrolled at the University of North Carolina and his father paid all the expenses including tuition, clothing, travel, room and board, etc. Thereupon Mr. Heiman filed a petition seeking a decrease in the amount of child support or in the alternative a declaratory judgment construing the terms of the settlement agreement to determine whether he is still obligated thereunder to pay Barbara the $75 weekly support for Daniel while at the same time paying for Daniel’s college expenses set out above. As respondent, Barbara Heiman served upon him a notice to produce financial records and extensive interrogatories inquiring into his financial status. Mr. Heiman filed his objections to the above and after a hearing the trial court entered an order overruling those objections.
The action being in the nature of an application for a declaratory judgment rather than a request for a reduction in child support payments based upon a change in financial status, Mr. Heiman’s financial status does not fall within the scope of discovery permitted under Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280.
Accordingly, the order overruling Mr. Heiman’s objections is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.