HARRY ABELSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ARIE LIONEL BOSEM, A/K/A LIONEL BOSEM, ET AL., 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.
Harry Abelson appeals an order overruling some of his objections to interrogatories in a dispute over Canadian properties held in trust. The court affirmed the trial judge's discovery order, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing interrogatories regarding the breach of a 1971 Letter of Intent while sustaining objections to premature accounting-related discovery.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Interrogatories pertaining to whether Harry and Sari breached the Letter of Intent were properly allowed, while those seeking premature accounting information were properly sustained.
[1] A trial court has wide discretion in discovery matters, which reviewing courts will ordinarily not disturb.
[2] A party must demonstrate an abuse of discretion to overturn a trial court's ruling on discovery.
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“a trial court in its treatment of discovery problems has wide discretion which the reviewing court ordinarily will not disturb”
Establishes the standard of review for discovery disputes and the deference afforded trial judges.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSari Abelson, Harry's wife, sued her siblings Lionel Bosem and Tova and Bobby Goodis for rescission and accounting, alleging breach of a March 25, 197…
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 Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order overruling a number of appellant’s objections to interrogatories, and appellees have cross-appealed that part of the order sustaining some of the objections.
The litigation in this cause began when Sari Abelson, the wife of appellant-coun-terdefendant, Harry Abelson, filed a complaint ' seeking rescission of certain agree ments and an accounting against her brother, Lionel Bosem, and her sister and brother-in-law, Tova and Bobby Goodis, appellee-counterplaintiffs. The complaint in essence alleged that appellees had violated a certain agreement between the parties, dated March 25, 1971 and entitled “Letter of Intent.” The appellees filed a counterclaim asserting several causes of action arising out of the alleged breach of the “Letter of Intent” by both Sari and her husband, Harry. The complaint was tried separately from the counterclaim and during this trial, the “Letter of Intent” was determined by the trial court to be valid and enforceable. The outcome of the trial was a final judgment dismissing Sari’s complaint with prejudice and reserving jurisdiction to try appellees’ counterclaim for specific performance, damages, an accounting and other equitable relief as a result of Sari’s and Harry’s breach of the “Letter of Intent.” The essential allegations of the counterclaim are (1) Sari Abelson, Lionel Bosem and Tova Goodis are the children of Simon and Rachel Bosem, now deceased; (2) just prior to Simon’s death, Simon conveyed all his properties in Canada to Sari and Harry Abelson as trustees on behalf of the children. Lionel, Tova and Sari, and his wife, Rachel; (3) the March 25, 1971 “Letter of Inetnt” stipulated that as soon as practical title to these Canadian properties should be deeded in the names of the children, Lionel, Tova and Sari, and Simon’s wife, Rachel; and (4) Harry and Sari breached this agreement by selling some of the properties, but the consideration received and the specific properties sold were unknown. Appellees propounded to Harry Abelson, interrogatories which sought a compilation of facts, figures and details on any and all Canadian properties Harry has owned since 1953. Harry filed his objections to all of the interrogatories on the grounds that (1) since appellees had not established their right to an accounting, the interrogatories were premature and he would be put to a lot of trouble for nothing, and (2) appellees merely are seeking to harass him. After a hearing on the objections, the trial judge entered the herein appealed order sustaining Harry’s objections to those interrogatories pertaining to the accounting and overruling his objections to the remaining interrogatories relating to issue of whether Sari and Harry breached the “Letter of Intent.”
We conclude that the appeal and cross-appeal lack merit in that a trial court in its treatment of discovery problems has wide discretion which the reviewing court ordinarily will not disturb, and both the appellant and cross-appellants have failed to demonstrate an abuse of that discretion accorded the trial court. See RCP 1.280 (b) and Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 551; Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 745; Continental Mortgage Investors v. Village By the Sea, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 833.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…f law which cannot be remedied on appeal. Zuberbuhler v. Division of Administration, 344 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The trial court’s resolution of discovery problems should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Continental Mortgage Investors v. Village By The Sea, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Here it is clear that the trial court carefully considered the particular interrogatories after a full hearing and presentation of t…
-
Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…not be disturbed unless an abuse of that discretion has been shown. No abuse of discretion has been made to appear in this case. Accordingly, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. Stowe v. Shults, 379 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1976); Crystal Springs Water Co. v. Atchison, 267 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Appellant’s next contention is that the trial court erred in limiting the cross-examination of appellee’s attorn…
-
Waite v. Wellington Boats, Inc., 459 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…y Trial courts must be accorded broad discretion in the treatment of discovery problems through the employment of the protective provisions contemplated by Rule 1.280. See Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1956); Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Moreover, petitioner has made no showing that he has been, or will be, unable to obtain needed discovery by other means available under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the tri…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Girten v. Bouvier, 155 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Cont'l Mortg. Invs. v. Vill. BY THE SEA, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)