MARIA DOPICO-CAB, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS DOPICO-CAB, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's order striking a notice of deposition duces tecum, holding that a judgment creditor may obtain discovery from a judgment debtor under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560 to aid in satisfying a judgment, and that any laches defense must be pleaded and proved by clear and convincing evidence.
A judgment creditor may obtain discovery from a judgment debtor pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560 to aid in satisfying a judgment, and any laches defense must be pleaded and proved by clear and convincing evidence of prejudice.
[1] A judgment creditor seeking discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560 to aid in satisfying a judgment need not overcome a laches defense unless the judgment d…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee was ordered in 1977 to pay attorney's fees to his wife's counsel within twenty days. Years later, the wife's counsel sought to take a dep…
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 Judgment Creditor Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order under review which granted appellee’s motion to strike a “Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum in Aid of Deposition.” The appellee has conceded in this court that the 1977 “Order Granting Attorney’s Fees,” which required him to pay to his wife’s counsel a sum certain within twenty days, is, in effect, a final judgment despite its denomination as an order. See Travelers Indemnity Company v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Given that appropriate concession, we find no basis in the record for the trial court’s refusal to allow the judgment creditor, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560, to obtain discovery from the judgment debtor in aid of the judgment.1 Assuming, arguendo, that laches may be interposed as a defense to the creditor’s belated effort to satisfy the judgment, see, e.g., Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., 38 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1948), that defense must be first pleaded and then proved by clear and convincing evidence showing that the delay in attempting to collect the judgment has prejudiced or disadvantaged the appellee. No such showing was made here.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
JORGENSON, J., dissents.
. Rule 1.560 provides:
“In aid of a judgment, decree or execution the judgment creditor or his successor in interest, when that interest appears of record, may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in these rules.” (emphasis supplied).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schmidt v. Stokes McMillan Antúnez Martinez-Lejarza P.A. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., 38 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1948)