DWIGHT D. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
MIRTH K. BROWN, 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.
Former husband appeals from an order denying his motion for protective order and compelling him to appear for a deposition in aid of execution in Florida to satisfy accumulated child support and alimony arrearages. The court affirms, holding that the trial court had authority to compel the nonresident plaintiff's appearance for the deposition.
The trial court had authority to compel the former husband's appearance. A nonresident plaintiff who invokes the jurisdiction of the forum state may reasonably be required to appear there for deposition, particularly when the deposition is sought in aid of execution rather than for discovery purposes.
[1] A trial court has authority to compel a party to appear for a deposition in aid of execution, even in the absence of an explicit retention of jurisdiction.
[2] A notice of taking deposition, in lieu of a subpoena, is sufficient to require a party's attendance.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court had such authority even in the absence of any retention of jurisdiction. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.560”
Establishes that trial court authority to compel deposition in aid of execution exists independently of retention of jurisdiction language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in 1979 under a Maryland judgment. In 1981, the former husband filed suit in Florida to establish the Maryland judgment as a…
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 Motion For Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Appellant, former husband, appeals from an order denying his motion for protective order and compelling him to appear for a deposition in aid of execution. We affirm.
The parties were divorced in 1979 pursuant to a Maryland judgment. In 1981, pursuant to an action filed by the former husband in the Circuit Court in Duval County, the Maryland judgment was established as a Florida judgment. The former husband, a California resident, applied for and received from the lower court a modification of the final judgment reducing his child support payments and terminating his permanent periodic alimony payments.1 However, judgment was entered against the former husband on the accumulated arrear-ages.
The former wife noticed a deposition in aid of execution, for which the former husband did not appear. She moved to compel the husband to appear in Duval County for the deposition. He moved for a protective order.2 The court denied the motion for protective order and granted the motion to compel. This appeal followed.3
Appellant first argues that the trial court had no authority to compel him to appear for a deposition in aid of execution since it did not properly retain jurisdiction in the order modifying child support and alimony.4 We find this argument without merit since the trial court had such authority even in the absence of any retention of jurisdiction. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.560. And a notice of taking deposition, in lieu of subpoena, was sufficient to require appellant’s attendance.
Appellant also argues that the wife is not entitled to require the former husband, a California resident, to appear in Florida, the forum state, for his deposition. We disagree. The regulation by the trial courts of depositions is largely a matter of the court’s sound discretion. City of Miami Beach v. Wolfe, 83 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1955). The appellant was the plaintiff below and invoked the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. Although it has been held that a nonresident defendant who does not seek affirmative relief in the cause should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be required to travel to the forum state to give a deposition, Godshall v. Hessen, 227 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969) and Madax International Corporation v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Services, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), a plaintiff, having invoked the jurisdiction of the forum state, may reasonably be required to appear there for the taking of his deposition.
Further, the fact that the deposition is sought in aid of execution, as opposed to discovery in connection with an unproved claim, lends additional support for the appealed order. See Largo Hospital Owners, LTD v. Gorman, supra.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . That order was the subject of an earlier appeal to this Court in Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (relinquishing jurisdiction) and Brown v. Brown, 453 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
. The notice requested production of numerous documents. However, the former husband’s motion for protective order was directed solely to his duty to appear pursuant to the notice; no issue was raised directed to the list of documents which he was requested to produce at his deposition.
. The order denying motion for protective order is appealable. See Largo Hospital Owners LTD. v. Gorman, 408 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982).
. Appellant argues that although the trial court added a retention of jurisdiction clause into the order of modification after our remand in Brown, supra, 453 So. 2d 149, such was outside the scope of the mandate issued by this court. As discussed infra, we need not reach this issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Feigin v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc., 569 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…revised fourth amended complaint, Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. denied, 257 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1972) or by staying appellant’s discovery depositions pending the motion to dismiss hearing. Brown v. Brown, 500 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Although Tarpon Temporary Sewer Comm., Inc. v. City of Tarpon Springs, 345 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) indicates that courts should allow leave to amend for counts asserted for the first time, we believe that the trial co…
-
Florida Highway Patrol v. Bejarano, 137 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ormond Beach, 189 So. 2d at 243. After all, because Mr. Bejarano chose to file a lawsuit in Florida, it stands to reason that he “may reasonably be required to appear there for the taking of his deposition.” Brown v. Brovm, 500 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). But the law is not absolute on this point. Instead it gives “the trial court discretion to grant protective orders ‘for good cause shown ... to protect a party [... ] from undue burden or expense.’ ” Logitech, 817 So. 2d at…1 / 2
-
Prevost CAR, Inc. v. Vehicles-R-Us, Inc., 658 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…Absent extraordinary circumstances, an out-of-state defendant who has not sought affirmative relief should not be required to travel to Florida in order to be deposed. See Kaufman v. Kaufman, 63 So. 2d 196, 200 (Fla.1952); see also Brown v. Brown, 500 So. 2d 655, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Besco Equip. Co. v. Golden Loaf Bakery, 458 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Prevost has not sought affirmative relief, and respondent, Vehicles-R-Us, Inc., has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. We, therefore, qu…
Authorities Cited
- Madax Int'l Corp. v. Delcher Intercontinental Moving Servs., Inc., 342 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Wolfe, 83 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)
- Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 440 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Godshall v. Hessen, 227 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Largo Hosp. Owners, Ltd. v. David Gorman in Bankr. for Int'l Glass & Mfg. Co., Inc., 408 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Mirth K. Brown v. Brown, 453 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)