PONTE VEDRA RECORDER, INC., A CORPORATION, AND PEGGY F. BRADFORD, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOT THOMAS CARPENTER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GRETCHEN MARIE CARPENTER, RESPONDENT
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.
The court quashed a discovery order requiring petitioners to produce documents for an accounting claim because the pleadings had not established respondent's right to an accounting before the trial court ordered discovery on that issue. The decision clarifies that a threshold determination of the right to an accounting must precede discovery demands on that subject.
The trial court's order was improper because the pleadings did not establish respondent's right to an accounting and the trial court did not determine such a right before ordering discovery on the accounting issue. The portion of the order requiring production of documents was quashed.
[1] A party seeking extraordinary relief by certiorari must demonstrate that all points raised were presented to and ruled upon by the trial court.
[2] The production of personal income tax returns may constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law when irrelevant to the issues framed in the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 order does not conform to the essential requirements of law because the pleading did not establish the respondent's right to an accounting and the trial court did not determine respondent's right to an accounting before it ordered discovery as to the accounting”
Establishes the core legal principle that a threshold determination of the right to an accounting must precede discovery on that subject.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent, as personal representative of Gretchen Marie Carpenter's estate, sought an accounting from petitioners (Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. and Peg…
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 Discovery Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Petitioners seek review by certiorari1 of a non-final order related to discovery proceedings. The trial court entered an order denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint and requiring petitioners to produce certain documents pursuant to respondent’s request for production of documents. We consider only that portion of the order involving discovery, and we grant the petition.
This suit arose when respondent, as personal representative of the estate of Gretchen Marie Carpenter, sought an accounting by petitioners of the net undistributed profits for 1978 and 1979 of Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc., a corporation allegedly formerly owned by decedent and petitioner, Bradford. Respondent’s original complaint was dismissed without prejudice. He filed an amended complaint and a request for the production of certain documents, including Bradford’s income tax returns for 1978 and 1979, other personal and business records showing Bradford’s income, and corporate records showing dividends paid to Bradford by the corporation for those years. Petitioners objected to this request and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but did not file an answer to the complaint. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and requiring petitioners to produce the requested documents.
Petitioners argue, and we agree, that the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law because the pleading did not establish the respondent’s right to an accounting and the trial court did not determine respondent’s right to an accounting before it ordered discovery as to the accounting. See Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1956); Giammaresi v. Parker, 326 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Aly Handbags, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 305 So. 2d 56 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); cf. Bartolucci v. Bartolucci, 399 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (holding that the pleadings established a right to an accounting).
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted, and that portion of the lower court’s order requiring that petitioners produce the requested documents is quashed.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORA-RI IS GRANTED. .
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…t need be considered. Items possibly relevant to an accounting are not discoverable until the right to an accounting has been established. See, e.g., Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1956); Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. v. Carpenter, 401 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Giammaresi v. Parker, 326 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); cf. Bartolucci v. Bartoluc-ci, 399 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (pleadings affirmatively established a right to an accounting). . See, e.g., Erik Electric Co., Inc. v.…
-
OIL Conservationists, Inc. v. Judd Gilbert, 471 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ranted certio-rari in analogous eases wherein there was a court order for premature production of financial information. See East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. v. Carpenter, 401 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). This case cannot be distinguished from those. [*654] Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash the order of February 20, 1984, for the reason that it does not conform to essential requirements of law and may cause material inju…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Fla. Land Co., 450 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…rder as it applies to twenty-five of the thirty-eight documents.1 Certiorari is appropriate to review an order requiring a party to produce certain documents or disclose certain information in discovery. See Ponte Vedra Recorder, Inc. v. Carpenter, 401 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). The question here is whether the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure of the twenty-five documents at issue. The court fo…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956)
- Bartolucci v. Bartolucci, 399 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- ALY Handbags, Inc. v. Ira Rosenfeld, 305 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Giammaresi v. Greer Parker, 326 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)