CENTRAL PLAZA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE E. CHADWICK, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
MAX LANDER, 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.
Florida appellate court held that income tax returns are discoverable in an estate dispute where the defendant's financial condition is relevant to whether he paid the decedent's bills with the decedent's own money.
Income tax returns are sufficiently relevant and discoverable under liberal pretrial discovery rules when a defendant's income is material to a defense that the defendant paid the decedent's bills using the decedent's own funds.
[1] Income tax returns are discoverable in pretrial proceedings when a party's income is material to a defense in the case, notwithstanding the producing party's objection.
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 intelligenceMax Lander sued the administrator of Marie E. Chadwick's estate for reimbursement of sums allegedly expended on behalf of the decedent. The administra…
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 Pretrial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, Max Lander, is suing petitioner, Central Plaza Bank and Trust Company, administrator of the estate of Marie E. Chadwick having replaced Donald Bush, executor of the estate, for sums of money allegedly expended by him on behalf of petitioner’s decedent. During the course of pretrial proceedings, the circuit court entered an order denying the petitioner’s motion to produce respondent’s income tax returns for the last three years and denying petitioner’s motion for issuance of a commission to take the deposition of an Internal Revenue Service representative in Atlanta, Georgia, for the purpose of obtaining these returns. The petition for certiorari attacks this order. One of petitioner’s defenses to respondent’s claim is that respondent paid the decedent’s bills with the decedent’s own money. Hence, he argues that respondent’s income during the applicable period of time is pertinent to his defense. Notwithstanding the objection of the respondent, we hold the production of respondent’s income tax returns is sufficiently relevant to the issues in this case as to require their production under the liberal rules of pretrial discovery. See Leby Estates, Inc. v. Polly, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 308 So. 2d 165.
The petition is granted, and the court is directed to enter an appropriate order which will enable the petitioner to obtain copies of the income tax returns.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur. GRIMES, J., dissents with opinion.
GRIMES, Judge
(dissenting).
Had I been the trial judge, I would have required the production of the income tax returns. However, since the respondent’s income is not directly in issue in this case, I cannot say that the order entered below constituted a “departure from the essential requirements of the law.” County of Dade v. Baird, Fla.App.3d 1968, 211 So. 2d 609.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cnty. OF Dade v. Baird, 211 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Lely Ests., Inc. v. Polly, 308 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)