EL CONQUISTADOR CONDOMINIUM, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON MILLER AND FRANCES MILLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order requiring production of bank records and cancelled checks in response to a subpoena duces tecum, but modified the time period to match what was actually requested in the subpoena.
A trial court may require production of bank statements and cancelled checks pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, but the time period must be limited to that specified in the subpoena itself.
[1] A trial court may not expand the scope of a subpoena duces tecum beyond the time period actually specified in the subpoena itself.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Millers sued El Conquistador Condominium to rescind a purchase agreement and recover a $3,200 deposit. El Conquistador counterclaimed, and the Mil…
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 Recovery Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant in the trial court appeals an order denying its motion to quash plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum.
Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Miller, filed a complaint against the defendant, El Conquistador, to rescind and terminate a purchase agreement and to recover $3,200 deposited pursuant to the terms thereof. El Conquistador, appellant herein, answered and counterclaimed. Plaintiffs answered the counterclaim and thereafter served a subpoena duces tecum for deposition upon the president of appellant and noticed the taking of his deposition. The subpoena designated specific records for the period July 10, 1973 through July 31, 1973. Thereupon, defendant-appellant filed a motion to quash subpoena duces tecum and after a hearing was held on this motion, the trial judge entered his order denying said motion and requiring appellant’s president to bring to his deposition all of the bank statements together with cancelled checks for the period May 1, 1973 through July 5, 1974 inclusive, covering the defendant’s escrow account at the City National Bank. This interlocutory appeal followed.
After a review of the record on appeal in light of controlling principle of law, we conclude that the trial judge erred only with respect to the time period contained in his order (i. e. May 1, 1973 through July 5, 1974 inclusive) as this period exceeded the period of time requested in plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum. See RCP 1.350(b). Accordingly, we hereby modify the dates in the trial court’s order to read from July 10, 1973 through July 31, 1973 inclusive and, as modified, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.