U.S. BANK, N.A., ETC.,
v.
RAUL ZAYAS, ET AL.,
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 appellate court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, quashing a trial court's order that directed U.S. Bank to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for contempt. The court found the order departed from the essential requirements of law.
Yes, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. A party cannot be sanctioned for contempt for violating an order that is not clear or for failing to produce documents not previously ordered or outside its control.
[1] A writ of certiorari quashing a trial court's order is appropriate when the trial court departs from the essential requirements of law, causing irreparable injury not rem…
[2] A party cannot be sanctioned for contempt for violating a court directive or order that is not clear and definite as to how compliance is to be achieved.
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“it is a departure from the essential requirements of law, not remediable on appeal, to subject a party to a show cause order and sanctions for failing to produce documents it has not previously been ordered to produce.”
Establishes the primary reason for granting the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank was ordered by the trial court to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for contempt for allegedly defying a discovery order. The order…
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 Contempt Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner U.S. Bank seeks a writ of certiorari quashing an April 15, 2019 order of the trial court directing U.S. Bank to show cause why it should not be sanctioned under the court’s inherent contempt powers for defying the discovery order of August 20, 2018.1 A writ of certiorari quashing a trial court’s order will lie where the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable injury that is not remediable on plenary appeal. Aurora Bank v. Cimbler, 166 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995)).
We find the petition to be well-taken for three reasons.
First, it is a departure from the essential requirements of law, not remediable on appeal, to subject a party to a show cause order and sanctions for failing to produce documents it has not previously been ordered to produce. See Menke v. Wendell, 188 So. 3d 869, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (granting petition for certiorari and finding a departure from the essential requirements of law observing that “[i]t is well established that a party cannot be sanctioned for contempt for violating a court directive or order which is not clear and definite as to how a party is to comply with the court’s command.” (quoting Ross Dress for Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511, 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)) (citing Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1998) (“[W]hen a final judgment or order is not sufficiently explicit or precise to put the party on notice of what the party may or may not do, it cannot support a conclusion that the party willfully or wantonly violated that order.”))).
Second, a court cannot require a deponent to produce documents outside of his or her possession or control. See Fritz v. Norflor Constr. Co., 386 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410 (2019); Authors Comment to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410 (1967) (“A subpoena duces tecum generally reaches all documents or tangible things under the control of the person or corporation ordered to produce, except for questions of privilege and unreasonableness.”).
Finally, documents regarding loan ownership and origin are irrelevant when the foreclosing plaintiff pleads standing as the noteholder. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the April 15, 2019 order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Menke v. Wendell, 188 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Fritz v. Norflor Constr. Co., 386 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Aurora Bank v. Cimbler, 166 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)