BENJAMIN D. WOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICK D. BRACKETT, APPELLEE
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 an accounting action, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an order requiring production of business records before the trial court had determined whether the plaintiff had a right to an accounting. The court held that the right to an accounting must be established as a threshold matter before discovery of related documents can be ordered.
The trial court erred in ordering production of documents without first determining whether the plaintiff had a right to an accounting. The right to an accounting is a threshold issue that must be decided before courts can order production of documents related to the accounting itself.
[1] Discovery related to an accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled.
[2] Documents relevant only to the amount of sums due in an accounting are not discoverable until the right to an accounting has been determined.
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“in an action for an accounting there are two triable issues: the first of these being the right to an accounting. This issue must be decided first before the court can enter orders requiring production of documents related solely to the second issue, the accounting itself.”
Establishes the foundational rule that the right to an accounting must be determined before discovery can be ordered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWood filed an accounting action against Brackett regarding a laundromat business in which Wood claimed a partnership interest. The trial court granted…
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 Right To An Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in an accounting actior has taken this interlocutory appeal from ar order entered by the Circuit Court for Du-val County granting the plaintiff’s motion to produce certain books, records, and papers of a laundromat business owned and operated by the defendant in which business the plaintiff claimed a partnership interest.
The principal question presented for our determination in this interlocutory appeal is whether the court erred in granting the said motion without having determined the plaintiff’s right to an accounting.
In its brief the defendant relies upon the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida, in Cay Construction Co. v. Conlee Construction Co., 200 So.2d 563 (Fla.App.1967). In that case Conlee filed an action for an accounting and later filed a motion to produce certain documents in Cay’s possession. The trial court ordered the production. In reversing the trial court, the District Court of Appeal cited the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So.2d 551 (Fla.1956), which sets out the rule in Florida that in an action for an accounting there are two triable issues: the first of these being the right to an accounting. This issue must be decided first before the court can enter orders requiring production of documents related solely to the second issue, the accounting itself.
In the more recent case of Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri v. Simon, 255 So.2d 557 (Fla.App.1971) a plaintiff filed an action in trespass and the defendant counterclaimed for an accounting and other relief. The trial court entered an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents, records, and papers. In its decision quashing the said order, the - Second District Court of Appeal said:
“Prior to granting appellees’ motion to produce, appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court should have determined whether appellees had a right to an accounting. ... It appears from the record on appeal that the trial court failed to determine such right; therefore, the discovery sought by appellees must be deferred until this preliminary issue is settled.”
The obvious reason for the foregoing rule is probably that, without the rule, any person could inspect the private records of another by the simple, device of filing a complaint against the latter asking for an accounting.
In the case at bar the court had not determined that the plaintiff had a right to *400an accounting when it entered the order appealed from.
In this appeal we are not favored with a brief filed by the appellee so we do not have the advantage of knowing the views and reasoning of the able trial judge who entered the order appealed from.
From the foregoing reasons the order appealed from herein should be, and it is, quashed, and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the views set forth above.
Quashed and remanded with directions.
RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salem G. Zebouni v. Toler, 513 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…to matters relevant to the establishment of the right to an accounting and, if such a right is established, discovery proceeds in the second stage to the actual accounting. Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1956); Wood v. Brackett, 266 So. 2d 398 (1st DCA 1972); Trawick, Trawick’s Fla.Prac. and Proc. § 37-12 (1986 ed.). A premature order for discovery as to matters relating solely to the accounting itself is a departure from the essential requirements of law, and the recognized remedy is a…
-
David v. Tansill, 297 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…Court in Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1956), concluded that discovery as to an accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled. This case has been followed by Wood v. Brackett, 266 So. 2d 398 (Fla.App.1972); Stanton Investment Company v. Simon, 255 So. 2d 557 (Fla.App.1971); Boyd v. Walker, 251 So. 2d 332 (Fla.App.1971); A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, 222 So. 2d 442 (Fla.App.1969); Armstrong v. Piatt, 201 So. 2d 830 (Fla.App.1967) a…
-
Peele v. Hibiscus Realty, Inc., 427 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…here the only issue is the entitlement to an accounting, this rule serves the laudable purpose of obviating the need for the opposing party to produce his records of account until it is determined that he is obligated to do so. See Wood v. Brackett, 266 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). In practice, however, the rule is not so easily applied. Often, it is difficult to separate what constitutes legitimate discovery concerning the right to an accounting from discovery of matters which go to the accounting itself.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956)
- CAY Constr. Co. v. Conlee Constr. Co., 200 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Stanton Inv. Co. OF Mo., Inc. v. Simon, 255 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)