WILLIS G. VAN DEVERE, PETITIONER,
v.
JEANETTE V. HOLMES, 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.
Van Devere, an attorney serving as ancillary co-executor of an estate, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a discovery order requiring him to produce all bank records from his trust account and financial information about the decedent. The court granted the petition and quashed the overly broad order, limiting discovery to records relating only to transactions with the decedent and the estate.
The court granted the petition for certiorari and quashed the discovery order. The order was amended to limit production of records to those relating solely to transactions for or with the decedent and the decedent's estate, thereby protecting the attorney's other clients' privileged communications while permitting legitimate discovery of estate-related matters.
“the order ought to be amended to limit its effect to matters relating to transactions for or with the decedent”
The court's primary holding regarding the proper scope of discovery, balancing the estate's legitimate need for information against the attorney's interest in protecting client confidences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis G. Van Devere was an attorney and ancillary co-executor of the estate of Jeanette G. Van Devere. The County Judge issued an order requiring Van…
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 Privileged Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order of the County Judge’s Court. The .order sought to be reviewed provides, as follows: ■:
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND’ DECREED that Willis G. Van Devere, Ancillary Co-Executor in the above referred to Estate be and he is hereby ' ordered and directed to obtain arid’1' produce to E. A. Ulmer, C.P.A., the'; original or photostatic copies of all'' bank statements, cancelled checks, and: deposit slips concerning his Trust-Ac-', count with the Florida National Bank and Trust Company of Miami, Miami,., Florida, which Trust Account is re- ■ ferred to as the W. G. Van Devere Trust Account for the period commencing April 6, 1949 up to, and including August 28, 1958.
“It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Willis G. Van Devere, Ancillary Co-Executor, of the above styled Estate furnish to E. A. Ulmer, C.P.A., any other data *900which he may have or which he may he able to acquire concerning the financial affairs of the decedent, Jeanette G. Van Devere.
“It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Willis G. Van Devere, Ancillary Co-Executor be and he is hereby ordered to obtain and produce, or to cooperate in obtaining and producing from the Florida National Bank and Trust Company of Miami, Miami, Florida, all information concerning the amount and date of any and all loans made to Jeanette G. Van Devere, deceased by the Florida National Bank and Trust Company of Miami, and the mode or method of repayment of such loans.”
It should be noted that the order under review requires disclosure to a court-appointed examiner. We have determined that the petition for certiorari is proper because compliance with the order may reasonably cause material injury and the remedy by appeal will be inadequate. See Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24; Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 572.
The petitioner claims two grounds for the issuance of the writ. The first urges that the accounts to be examined include privileged communications because the order is so broad in scope that it includes dealings between the petitioner, who is a practicing attorney, and his clients, not involved in the controversy. The second ground asserted is that the scope of the inquiry permitted by the order is so broad that it is unlawful. We have determined that the order ought to be amended to limit its effect to matters relating to transactions for or with the decedent. It affirmatively appears from the record that the object sought by the discovery is a determination of the true amount due from the petitioner to the estate if such be the case. Under these circumstances, it ought not to be necessary to require an examination of all of the trust account of the attorney-petitioner. See Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 33, 83 A.L.R.2d 297.
Therefore, the order dated March 18, 1963, is quashed with directions to the trial court to enter an order limiting the records required to be produced to those relating to transactions for or with the decedent and decedent’s estate.
The writ is granted and the order quashed with directions to enter an amended order limited as herein set forth.
It is so ordered.
CARROLL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 604 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1992)
-
In re THE Fla. BAR: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1972)…eliminated, the change is not intended to overrule cases limiting discovery under this rule to the scope of ordinary discovery nor is it intended to overrule cases limiting unreasonable requests such as those reviewed in Devere v. Holmes, Fla.App., 156 So. 2d 899; IBM v. Elder, Fla.App., 187 So. 2d 82 and Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, Fla., 226 So. 2d 217. It is intended that the court review each objection and weigh the need for discovery and the likely results of it against the rights of priv…
-
Fryd Constr. Corp. v. Freeman, 191 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…RSON, Judge. We are presented with a petition for certiorari which seeks review of an order for discovery in a common law action. We have determined that issuance of the writ is proper under the rule set forth in Van Devere v. Holmes, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 899, 900. The plaintiff, petitioner, brought an action against the respondent for slander. The damages claimed are “disgrace and public humiliation resulting in injury to its reputation, professional standing and business.” In pursuit of discovery, app…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kauffman v. Annabel King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1956)
- Rachelle Enters., Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 117 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, 123 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)