ERVIN A. HIGGS, AS PROPERTY APPRAISER FOR MONROE COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
KAMPGROUNDS OF AMERICA, A MONTANA CORPORATION, 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.
A property appraiser sought certiorari review of an order requiring him to disclose confidential taxpayer financial records in response to interrogatories served by a resort company contesting property tax assessments. The court held that confidential taxpayer information cannot be disclosed without a showing of necessity that outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality.
Confidential taxpayer information cannot be disclosed merely by seeking a court order; the party seeking discovery of such information must make a showing of necessity that outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining confidentiality. The trial court abused its discretion by issuing the order without requiring respondent to demonstrate a convincing need for the confidential information.
[1] Taxpayer financial records are confidential and should not be disclosed without a showing of necessity.
[2] A party seeking discovery of confidential information must demonstrate a necessity that outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality.
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“Confidential information is generally not disclosed merely by seeking a court order. Courts, when confronted with discovery questions, especially those involving confidential information, decide the questions by balancing the competing interests to be served by granting or denying the discovery.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that confidential information requires balancing test, not automatic disclosure upon court order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKampgrounds of America (KOA) filed an action contesting the assessment and valuation of its Fiesta Key Resort and served interrogatories on the Monroe…
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 Balancing Competing Interests In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Petitioner, Ervin Higgs, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, seeks certiorari review of an order requiring him to answer interrogatories which he contends would result in disclosure of confidential taxpayer information. Respondent, Kampgrounds of America (KOA), served the interrogatories in connection with an action filed against petitioner contesting the assessment and valuation placed on respondent’s Fiesta Key Resort.
Petitioner relies on sections 193.074 and 195.027(3), Florida Statutes (1987),1 which provide that all returns and records produced by taxpayers shall be deemed to be confidential. Petitioner submits that the information KOA seeks was provided by taxpayers under the assurance that the information would be kept confidential and not made available to competitors. Petitioner argues that the trial court, in issuing its order, neither considered the taxpayers’ interests nor required that KOA establish a reason for requesting the information. Respondent also relies on sections 193.074 and 195.027(3), pointing to the exception within the statutes which allows disclosure of confidential information upon court order. We find merit in petitioner’s objections.
Confidential information is generally not disclosed merely by seeking a court order. Courts, when confronted with discovery questions, especially those involving confidential information, decide the questions by balancing the competing interests to be served by granting or denying the discovery. Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., 500 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987); North Miami General Hosp. v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dade County Medical Ass’n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Thus, the party seeking discovery of confidential information must make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information.
The financial records of taxpayers have been found to be confidential in nature, Fryd Constr. Corp. v. Freeman, 191 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and should not be disclosed without a showing of necessity. Undeniably, a taxpayer, under the rules of discovery, would be able to discover data in the hands of the property appraiser, Bystrom v. Whitman, 488 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1986), but before the information is disclosed, the taxpayer is required to demonstrate that the information is necessary to determine the contested issue. “Access to a taxpayer’s records shall be provided only in those instances in which it is determined that such records are necessary to determine either the classification or the value of the taxable nonhomestead property.” § 195.027(3), Fla.Stat. (1987).
In the instant case we find respondent has not demonstrated a convincing need for the confidential information it requests, sufficient to tilt the balance of interests in favor of disclosure. We quash the order under review, finding the trial court abused its discretion and departed from the essential requirements of law. In quashing the order, we do so without preju dice to allowing respondent the opportunity to serve other interrogatories, provided a proper showing is made that such are needed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Certiorari granted.
. Section 193.074 in pertinent part provides:
"All returns of property ... submitted by the taxpayer pursuant to law shall be deemed to be confidential in the hands of the property appraiser, the clerk of the circuit court, the department, the tax collector, and the Auditor General, except upon court order...."
Section 195.027(3) likewise provides in pertinent part:
"All records produced by the taxpayer under this subsection shall be deemed to be confidential in the hands of the property appraiser, the department, the tax collector, and the Auditor General and shall not be divulged to any person, firm, or corporation, except upon court order_”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…also Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789, 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hausman, 598 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Higgs v. Kampgrounds of Am., 526 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Rasmussen v. South Fla. Blood Serv., 500 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987)). While we recognize that mere overbreadth of a discovery order is insufficient reason to grant the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, see Bd. of T…
-
Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…party’s privacy rights. “[T]he party seeking discovery of confidential information must make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information.” Higgs v. Kampgrounds of America, 526 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). As our supreme court explained in Rasmussen: In deciding whether a protective order is appropriate in a particular case, the court must b…
-
Cac-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Cary J. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). “[T]he party seeking discovery of confidential information must make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information.” Higgs v. Kampgrounds of Am., 526 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Although Johnson is entitled to some documentation of employment information at CAC in order to establish his discrimination [*436] claim, he has not demonstrated a necessity for the production of each employee’s entire file…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1987)
- Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. Hlis, 372 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bystrom v. S.F. Whitman, 488 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1986)
- Fryd Constr. Corp. v. Freeman, 191 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)