PRIME GROUP, LLC, AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES, SHERIDAN 46 INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, PRIME GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, PRIME DESIGN ASSOCIATES, LLC, PRIME AUTO GROUP, LLC, PRIME GENCORE, LLC, PRIME INVESTORS & DEVELOPERS, LLC, D/B/A PRIME HOMEBUILDERS AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED AFFILIATES AND SUBSIDIARIES, PORTOFINO BUILDERS SOUTH, INC., PORTOFINO VISTA BUILDERS, LLC, PRIME ENTERPRISES, LLC, PRIME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS, LLC, PRIME HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, PRIME HOLDINGS GROUP II, LLC, PRIME HOLDINGS GROUP III, LLC, PRIME HOLDINGS GROUP Y, LLC, PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO MEADOWS, LLC, PRIME HOMES AT SHERIDAN PLAZA, LLC, PRIME MARKETINGS AND SALES, LLC, PRIME GENERAL, LLC, PRIME HOMES OF FLORIDA, LLC, PRIME HOMEBUILDERS, INC., PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO PROFESSIONAL CENTER, LLC, VILLA PORTOFINO EAST BUILDERS, INC., THE FALLS OF PORTOFINO BUILDERS, LLC, VILLA PORTOFINO EAST COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, INC., VILLA PORTOFINO WEST COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, INC., PORTOFINO VILLAGE BUILDERS, LLC, PORTOFINO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, INC., PORTOFINO COVE BUILDERS, INC., PORTOFINO LANDINGS BUILDERS, INC., PORTOFINO LANDINGS COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, LLC, PORTOFINO SPRINGS BUILDERS, LLC, PORTOFINO PRESERVE BUILDERS, LLC, PORTOFINO VINEYARDS BUILDERS, LLC, PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO PLAZA, LLC, PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO PLAZA RETAIL, LLC, UNIVERSAL CAPITAL FUND, LLC, PRIME HOMES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
JEANNETTE ABBO, 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.
Prime Group challenged a trial court order finding waiver of accountant-client privilege. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of certiorari, finding the trial court's waiver determination was facially erroneous because it was made without an evidentiary hearing or notice to the parties to assert privilege.
The trial court's determination of privilege waiver was facially erroneous and the April 29, 2015 order is quashed. A court cannot find waiver of accountant-client privilege without an evidentiary hearing and without providing notice to the party claiming the privilege and an opportunity to assert it.
[1] A trial court errs by finding a waiver of accountant-client privilege without first affording the client notice or an opportunity to object.
[2] A waiver of accountant-client privilege cannot be found when the client has not yet been provided with the opportunity to identify documents for which privilege may be as…
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“Such finding is facially erroneous because, at the time of the September 16, 2014 hearing, the accounting firm had not yet provided the list of documents to which petitioners could direct an assertion of privilege.”
Explains why the trial court's waiver determination was legally impossible—the party could not have waived privilege when they had not yet received the privilege log.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt a September 16, 2014 hearing on a uniform motion calendar (where evidence is not permitted), the trial court apparently addressed accountant-client…
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 Accountant-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari, quash the April 29, 2015 order of the trial court, and remand for further proceedings. The challenged order found that petitioners had waived accountant-client privilege1 at an earlier, September 16, 2014 hearing. Such finding is facially erroneous because, at the time of the September 16, 2014 hearing, the accounting firm had not yet provided the list of documents to which petitioners could direct an assertion of privilege. The result of the April 29, 2015 order was that the trial court found a waiver of the accountant-client privilege without first affording petitioners notice or an opportunity to object.
There are no transcripts of either hearing as each hearing was held on a “uniform motion calendar” where the introduction of evidence is not permitted. D'Amato v. D’Amato, 848 So.2d 462, 463-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Nonetheless, we may consider the propriety of the April 29, 2015 order because the error in finding a waiver of an *236assertion 'of privilege without notice or evi-dentiary basis is apparent on the face of the order. Young v. Levy, 140 So.3d 1109, 1111-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Fernandes, 149 So.3d 744, 749 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). The trial court’s April 29, 2015 order was erroneous on its face because the court determined that petitioners waived the accountant-client privilege without conducting an evi-dentiary hearing either on that date or at the September 16, 2014 hearing. Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 837 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Petition granted; order quashed; and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, STEVENSON and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 837 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Vicente J. Fernandes, 149 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Young v. Levy, 140 So. 3d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- D'Amato v. Merry Jo D'Amato, 848 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)