ARTHUR PEARLMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HARRY PEARLMAN, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN PEARLMAN, 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.
The court held that a rule 1.540(b) motion requires full discovery and an evidentiary hearing before final determination.
The court considered two cases, 80-2011 and 82-1971. Case 80-2011 was held in abeyance pending a circuit court's determination of a rule 1.540(b) moti…
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 Attorney-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Case No. 80-2011 is held in abeyance pending final determination by the circuit court, in accord with this court’s directions, of the defendant’s rule 1.540(b) motion.
On the authority of Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1975), case no. 82-1971 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings as follows: in reaching its final determination the trial court is directed (1) to permit full discovery of the plaintiff, her attorneys and any other party relative to the defendant’s rule 1.540(b) motion and (2) thereafter conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s rule 1.540(b) motion.1 See also Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami v. George Construction Corp., 166 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (motion for relief from a final judgment grounded upon fraud merits a full opportunity to present all available facts to the court).
No. 80-2011 held in abeyance. No. 82-1971 reversed and remanded with directions.
. We note that no privilege attaches to a communication or transaction between an attorney and client with respect to their perpetration of fraud. Kneale v. Williams, 158 Fla. 811, 30 So. 2d 284 (1947); Anderson v. State, 297 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Malcoln S. H. Kneale v. Williams, 158 Fla. 811 (Fla. 1947)
- Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Anderson v. State, 297 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Seven-Up Bottling Co. OF Miami, Inc. v. George Constr. Corp., 166 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gentile v. Austin, 166 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Barnes v. Points, 312 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1975)