THE RESERVE, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE RESERVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF THE RESERVE, LTD., AND DR. MURRAY J. KLAUBER, PETITIONERS,
v.
COAST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, A FEDERAL ASSOCIATION, COAST FINANCIAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ROBERT ANTRIM, 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.
The Reserve and related parties sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's partial denial of their motions to compel discovery from Coast Federal Savings & Loan Association in a lender liability dispute. The appellate court denied the petition, finding the trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law and noting that petitioners had alternative discovery avenues available.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in its partial denial of the discovery motions. The petitioners have other available avenues to seek the discovery that have not been exhausted, and it would be premature to address confidentiality issues at this stage.
[1] A petition for a writ of certiorari is denied when the trial court's discovery order does not depart from the essential requirements of law.
[2] A court may deny a petition for writ of certiorari if petitioners have not exhausted other available avenues to seek discovery.
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“the petitioners still have other available avenues, which have not been exhausted, to seek the discovery”
The court's rationale for denying the certiorari petition—that petitioners had not yet used all available discovery mechanisms before seeking appellate relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners obtained a loan commitment from respondent Coast Federal for constructing a spa facility and condominium units with an accompanying mo…
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 Failure To Disclose Material Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order which denied in part the petitioners’ motions to compel the respondents to produce certain discovery. Petitioners had obtained a loan commitment through the respondents to construct a spa facility and condominium units which included a mortgage on the property. Problems developed between the parties causing a second financial institution which held a first mortgage on the property to refuse to fund a construction loan and to institute mortgage foreclosure proceedings.
Petitioners filed a ten-count complaint against respondents alleging lender liability, including counts for breach of loan commitment, failure to disclose material facts, breach of negotiating in good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation.
The documents sought by petitioners included respondents’ own appraisal reports as to the value of the property, accounting treatment of Coast Federal’s loan to the prior owner of the property, any discussions Coast Federal had had with a possible purchaser of Coast Federal concerning the petitioners’ loan, and any records of internal audits, outside accounting records, or regulatory agency records of the loan and the loan to the prior owner. Petitioners also sought answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions which were in part denied.
Although the respondents provided certain requested discovery, and the trial court ordered respondents to provide additional discovery, the petitioners allege that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying the additional discovery sought, thereby causing them irreparable harm throughout the remainder of the proceedings. See Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988).
We do not agree and therefore, deny the petition. In so holding, we note that the petitioners still have other available avenues, which have not been exhausted, to seek the discovery. This decision should not foreclose the petitioners from again seeking this information after further discovery or upon a proper showing of relevancy and necessity. At this juncture, however, it would be premature to pass upon any issues raised here and in the trial court relating to the confidentiality of certain discovery.
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. The Honorable William F. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)