ROBERT CARTER, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
KERRIE S. CARTER, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court vacated a discovery order requiring the husband to produce extensive financial information, holding that absent a prior judicial determination of the validity of the parties' settlement agreement, the husband need not disclose private financial information to the wife.
The trial court erred in ordering discovery. Unless and until the trial court invalidates the marital settlement agreement, the husband's private financial information should remain private and need not be disclosed in response to the wife's discovery request.
[1] A party seeking to compel discovery of personal financial information must demonstrate its relevance to the subject matter of the action and that the request is not overb…
[2] Discovery requests for personal financial information should not be compelled until the validity of a marital settlement agreement is determined, especially when the agre…
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“While personal financial information is fully discoverable when relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, it may cause irreparable harm to a person who is forced to disclose it when the information is not relevant, or is overbroad.”
Establishes the qualified nature of financial information discoverability and the harm principle underlying the court's reasoning.
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 entered into a handwritten settlement agreement in October 2006 resolving financial and custody issues while represented by counsel. A tem…
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 Overbroad Discovery Requests cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Carter, Jr. (the husband), the respondent in a petition for dissolution of marriage pending below, seeks review of a nonfinal order which denied his objections and motion for protective order, and required him to file a line-item response to the wife’s request to produce. We grant the petition.
Kerrie S. Carter (the wife) filed a petition for dissolution of the parties’ marriage in 2006. A temporary relief order was entered in September 2006. On October 31, 2006, both parties, while under the advisement of counsel and in their counsel’s presence, entered into a handwritten settlement agreement, resolving the parties’ financial and custody issues. The parties never obtained a final judgment incorporating the agreement, although from time to time the wife has asked the court to compel the husband’s compliance with it.
In 2007, the wife retained new counsel and moved for modification of the temporary relief order. She also asked the court not to approve the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, which the husband meanwhile has sought to enforce. Thereafter, the wife changed counsel again and, in 2008, she served on the husband a request to produce, seeking extensive financial information concerning him and the family business.
Subsequently, the wife also moved to set aside the settlement agreement, based in *398part on conclusory allegations that the husband’s disclosure of his income on his financial affidavit was “fraudulent.” She now takes the position that the discovery previously sought is necessary for her to litigate this motion.
Whether the trial court departed in ordering that discovery is the issue presented by the instant petition. While personal financial information is fully discoverable when relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, it may cause irreparable harm to a person who is forced to disclose it when the information is not relevant, Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla.2003), or is overbroad, Redland Co. v. Atl. Civil, Inc., 961 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the husband’s position that he should not be compelled to produce the discovery requested by the wife unless and until the court first determines the validity of the parties’ settlement agreement. See generally Kuchera v. Kuchera, 983 So.2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), rev. denied, 996 So.2d 212, 2008 WL 4768069 (Fla. Oct. 28, 2008); and Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which explain that when parties enter a settlement agreement after participating in contested litigation, having had the opportunity to make use of the procedural rules for discovery of financial resources, courts do not consider the fairness, to the challenging spouse, of a litigation settlement agreement pursuant to Casto v. Casto, 508 So.2d 330 (Fla.1987).
Although in this case the wife claims the agreement was procured by fraud or misrepresentation by the husband, the record before this court does not demonstrate that she pleaded such with specificity.1
Unless and until the trial court invalidates the parties’ marital settlement agreement, the husband’s private financial information should remain private. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the order directing discovery is quashed.
WARNER, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DE REY v. REY, 114 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ove that, based on the relative financial positions of the parties during the marriage, the agreement made unfair or unreasonable provision to the Wife. We disagree. We dispense with the Wife’s discovery argument at the outset. In Carter v. Carter, 3 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), the Fourth District established that when a party moves to set aside a marital settlement agreement entered into during the course of litigation on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, but in so doing pleads these grounds c…
-
Eagle FL VI SPE, LLC v. Cypress Creek Plaza, LLC, 128 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…o a deficiency judgment. Although the respondents have moved to set aside their stipulation, the trial court has not ruled on the motion. Therefore, the settlement and stipulation remain in effect and bar any further discovery. See Carter v. Carter, 3 So. 3d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that the former husband should not be compelled to produce the discovery requested by the former wife “unless and until the court first determines the validity of the parties’ settlement agreement”). Settlements are…
-
O'Barry v. Ocean World, S.A., 17 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…hat compel him to produce personal financial discovery. We grant the [*1287] petition and quash the order that granted Ocean World’s Motion to Compel. Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003); Carter v. Carter, 3 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); In re Estate of Sauey, 869 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Ocean World has sued O’Barry and others. The claim is that the many defendants, in various ways, interfered with Ocean World’s contract for the purchase of dolphins fro…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Petracca v. Luca R. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Kuchera v. Kuchera, 983 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Stephens v. State, 961 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)