GILBERT GUEDE AND JEZEL GUEDE, PETITIONERS,
v.
WINDSOR CAPITAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2009-10-14
No. 3D09-2241
Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.
18 So. 3d 1257 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Topics
Act Of Production Privilege Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Fifth Amendment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Act Of Production Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
SALTER, J.

SALTER, J.

Gilbert and Jezel Guede seek a writ of certiorari quashing two circuit court orders compelling them to produce documents, alleging that the “act of production may incriminate [them] and may lead to a link in the chain of evidence necessary to prove a crime.” The respondent, Windsor Capital Mortgage Corporation, requested production of applications for financing by the Guedes and additional documents alleged to have been created or used in a fraudulent mortgage scheme.

The circuit court correctly overruled the Guedes’ objections to production and their claims of privilege. No showing has been made that any of the requested documents are “testimonial communications” as detailed in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976), or that the very possession of the requested documents might itself constitute a criminal offense (as in Heddon v. State, 786 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). Having-conceded that copies of the requested documents were transmitted to other parties to the lawsuit, or in other cases to third parties, the Guedes’ objections have no basis in fact or law.

Petition denied. Respondent’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted and remanded by separate order.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gonzalez v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 80 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
    …because Espinosa did not claim the referee’s decision was not mailed to him or mailed to him untimely, no due process ground was alleged entitling Espi-nosa to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of timeliness); accord Madueno v. Home Enter. Design, 18 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (Cope, Suarez, and Salter, JJ.); accord Ambrister v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 968 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA [*343] 2007) (Gersten, C.J., Cope, and Salter, JJ.); accord Banos-Hill v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 967 So.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw