DON F. STARK, PETITIONER,
v.
REGENCY HIGHLAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., MELVIN T. GOLDBERGER, REGENCY HIGHLAND ASSOCIATES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
A Florida trial court ordered an out-of-state accountant to produce documents at a deposition in Tennessee without following the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act or issuing proper legal process. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari, quashing the order on jurisdictional grounds and holding that voluntary attendance at a deposition does not subject a witness to a court's jurisdiction.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the out-of-state witness. Voluntary attendance at a deposition does not submit a witness to the court's jurisdiction, and the failure to comply with the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act deprived the court of authority to compel document production. Additionally, the witness received inadequate notice violating Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(d).
[1] A Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over a witness who voluntarily attends a deposition in another state without any legal process being issued or served under th…
[2] Voluntarily attending a deposition in another state does not, by itself, submit a witness to the personal jurisdiction of the Florida courts.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“As noted above, neither party made any effort to comply with the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act. No commission ever issued out of any court, and no application was made to a Tennessee court for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness nor the production of the documents.”
Establishes that the parties failed to follow the statutory procedure for foreign depositions, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStark, an accountant with a Memphis, Tennessee accounting firm, was a witness in litigation between a condominium association and developer. The parti…
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 In Personam Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a witness in a Florida action between a condominium association and a developer, seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a discovery order. Petitioner is an accountant with the Memphis, Tennessee, branch of a national accounting firm. The parties to the litigation arranged for his voluntary deposition in Tennessee. Although the deposition was scheduled, and the witness resided, in Tennessee, neither party took steps to have a commissioner appointed or to have legal process issued and delivered under the provisions of the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act, Section 92.251, Florida Statutes (1981).
During the deposition, which occurred without the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, petitioner made reference to several documents concerning an audit of the condominium association. When asked to release all the documents in the audit file, petitioner agreed to release those documents to which he had referred, but refused to make available any of the audit department’s work papers or other documents. Three days .later (after notice by mail), the trial court in Florida granted a motion to compel the production of the documents in dispute. The order compelled the witness to deliver the documents within four days and stated that noncompliance would subject the witness to contempt proceedings in Florida. Neither the witness nor his counsel actually received the Notice of Hearing until after the fact, and we conclude the provisions of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(d) as to reasonable notice were clearly violated.
In this certiorari proceeding, petitioner argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him.
We agree. As noted above, neither party made any effort to comply with the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act. No commission ever issued out of any court, and no application was made to a Tennessee court for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness nor the production of the documents. Respondents would have us hold that by voluntarily attending a deposition in another state, petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. We decline to broaden the scope of in personam jurisdiction to encompass this situation. Even if the witness had submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction, he was under no compulsion to produce any documents at the deposition absent a subpoena duces te-cum. We grant the writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling production.
WRIT GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mogavero v. State, 744 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…the victims. See Lewis, 693 So. 2d at 1057. We also find no error in the trial court’s determination that there had been no discovery violation. See Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054, 1058 (Fla.1993); Stark v. Regency Highland Condominium Ass’n, 418 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). On the appeal from the revocation of probation, we affirm. The two convictions under section 687.141(1) were sufficient to support a revocation of probation. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DELL and SHAHOOD,…