IN RE ESTATE OF NORMAN O. SAUEY, SR., DECEASED. DONALD SAUEY AND NORMAN O. SAUEY, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF NORMAN O. SAUEY, SR., PETITIONERS,
v.
BEVERLY SAUEY, 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.
In this probate dispute, Beverly Sauey, the surviving spouse, sought discovery of financial information from the personal representatives of her deceased husband's estate to inform her decision on whether to exercise her statutory elective share right, which she had waived via antenuptial agreement subject to certain conditions. The Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the personal representatives' petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the discovery was proper and relevant to Beverly's determination of her entitlement.
The court held that the discovery was proper and relevant because the financial information would be relevant to Beverly's decision on whether to exercise her statutory elective share rights. The court refused to extend the premature discovery rule from accounting cases to this probate context, where there is no dispute about Beverly's status as a surviving spouse, only about her entitlement under the antenuptial agreement.
[1] Discovery requests are generally considered proper when the materials sought appear relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
[2] A writ of certiorari is not appropriate to review an order compelling the production of relevant financial information when no irreparable harm can be demonstrated.
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“[W]here materials sought by a party 'would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,' the information is fully discoverable.”
Establishes the applicable standard for discoverability in probate proceedings—materials relevant to the pending action must be produced.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorman O. Sauey, Sr. died leaving an estate administered by his sons Donald and Norman O. Sauey, Jr. as personal representatives. His surviving spouse…
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 Elective Share cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
This petition for writ of certiorari arises from probate litigation. Petitioners, Donald Sauey and Norman 0. Sauey, Jr., are the personal representatives of the Estate of Norman 0. Sauey, Sr. Respondent, Beverly Sauey, is the surviving spouse. An antenuptial agreement provided that Beverly waived her spousal rights in her husband’s estate upon the occurrence of certain conditions, including the funding of a marital trust for Beverly’s benefit.
In the circuit court, Beverly obtained an extension of time for making an elective share. She contended that she did not have enough information about the assets of the estate to make an informed decision on whether to exercise her statutory right to the elective share. Also, Beverly petitioned for the removal of Donald and Norman, Jr. as co-personal representatives, claiming that they had financial interests that conflicted with their obligations as personal representatives.
Beverly sought discovery of financial information from the personal representatives in requests for production and for admission. The personal representatives objected to the discovery. The trial court overruled the objections in an order dated October 14, 2003.
Considering the two issues being litigated, the discovery sought was proper. “[WJhere materials sought by a party ‘would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,’ the information is fully discoverable.” Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003) (quoting Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)). The order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot be the object of a writ of certiorari because there is no irreparable harm. See Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 666 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gaché v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 625 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Petitioners rely upon Picerne Development Corp. of Florida v. Tasca & Rotelli, 635 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), to argue that Beverly’s discovery was premature, in that it was “requested prior to the trial court entering an order establishing entitlement to the elective share.” Pi-ceme turns on the application of the rule that applies to discovery in an action for accounting. See Fla. Gaming Corp. of Del. v. Am. Jai-Alai, Inc., 673 So. 2d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). That rule should not be extended to this setting, where the discovery is relevant to the decision of whether or not to even seek an elective share. In accounting cases, there can often be a dispute as to the existence of the fiduciary relationship, such as a trust or partnership, that gives rise to the right to an accounting. Here, there is no dispute as to Beverly’s status as a surviving spouse, only as to her entitlement to the elective share in light of the antenuptial agreement.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
FARMER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heekin v. DEL COL, 60 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…elevant his financial standing, and thus, his financial information. An “order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot be [*439] the object of a writ of certiorari because there is no irreparable harm.” In re Estate of Sauey, 869 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Having failed to establish irreparable harm resulting from the discovery order, Mr. Heekin is not entitled to certiorari review of the order. DENIED. HAWKES, J„ concur. WOLF, J., Concurs With Opinion. * We previously d…
-
Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…denied certiorari. In doing so, the court noted that an “‘order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot be the object of a writ of certiorari because there is no irreparable harm.’ ” Id. at 907 (quoting In re Estate of Sauey, 869 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Because the financial records sought by Cruise Options were relevant to its claims for accounting and piercing the corporate veil, those records were properly discoverable. Id. In contrast, in Capco Properties, LLC v. Mon…
-
Rhea Killinger v. Guardianship OF Hazel Ione Grable, 983 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…at an order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot cause irreparable harm, and, therefore, we deny the writ as to the documents seeking financial information in requests numbered 1-6, 9, 11, and 13. See In re Estate of Sauey, 869 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Request 7 seeks Killinger’s expenditures on the education and medical treatment of her minor son and refers to a specific treatment center. The trial judge implicitly determined, and we cannot disagree, that Killinger’s fi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 666 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- GACHÉ v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 625 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Ciccarelli v. State, 635 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Fla. Gaming Corp. OF Del. v. Am. Jai-Alai, Inc., 673 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)