DANIELI CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
ANGELO RUSSO, 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.
Petitioners Danieli Corporation, Danieli Marketing, and June Martino sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring production of income tax returns and other financial data in a breach of contract and misrepresentation case. The court granted certiorari in part as to Martino, finding her personal income tax returns irrelevant to the issues raised, but denied certiorari as to the corporate petitioners for failure to raise objections in the trial court.
Certiorari was denied as to Danieli Corporation and Danieli Marketing because the petitioners failed to present their objections to the trial court, thus failing to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief. Certiorari was granted as to Martino because her personal income tax returns were irrelevant to the issues framed in the complaint, and their required production constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari will be denied as to issues not presented to or ruled upon by the trial court.
[2] Production of personal income tax returns may constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law when irrelevant to the issues framed in the complaint.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“except as to petitioner Martino, all of the points raised in petitioners' brief deal with objections never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court; under these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner has demonstrated his entitlement to extraordinary relief by certiorari”
Establishes the procedural requirement that objections must be raised in trial court before seeking certiorari review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order denying protective relief and requiring production of income tax returns and other financial data from petitioners. Th…
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 Willful Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*427] PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Danieli Corporation, Danieli Marketing and June Martino, have filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying protective relief and requiring production of income tax returns and other financial data.
A review of the proceedings reveals that except as to petitioner Martino, all of the points raised in petitioners’ brief deal with objections never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court; under these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner has demonstrated his entitlement to extraordinary relief by certiorari. See 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 82; 5 Fla.Jur., Certiorari, § 26; Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). However, with respect to petitioner Martino the production of her income tax returns is irrelevant to any of the issues framed in the complaint and the required production thereof constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.1 Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, 260 So. 2d 258 (Fla. App. 3d 1972); see also Trawick’s Fla. Practice & Procedure, 1975 ed., §§ 16-3 and 16-10.
Accordingly, certiorari is denied as to petitioners Danieli Corporation and Dani-eli Marketing.2 Certiorari is granted as to petitioner Martino and the challenged order is quashed insofar as it denies protection of the income tax returns of petitioner Martino.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur. WALDEN, C. J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
. The complaint seeks damages for an alleged breach of contract by the corporate petitioners and seeks compensatory and punitive damages against all petitioners for the alleged willful misrepresentation as to the financial stability of the corporate petitioners. The discovery of the personal income tax return of petitioner Martino has no relevancy whatsoever to these issues.
. Petitioners were not represented by the present counsel on appeal.
WALDEN, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :
I concur in the denial of certiorari as to Petitioners Danieli Corporation and Dan-ieli Marketing. I dissent as concerns granting certiorari to Petitioner Martino. It is my view that from the pleadings the discovery of her income tax return is altogether relevant and legally proper. Thus, I would deny certiorari as to all petitioners.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. P.C., 734 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…petitions for writs of certiorari. Accordingly, it seems to me that the state is not entitled to seek the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. See, e.g., North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Judson, 439 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Danieli Corp. v. Russo, 329 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 497 (1997). I would deny all of the petitions' on this basis, making it unnecessary to reach the mootness question.…
-
Parker v. R.A. Wenham PTY., Ltd., 829 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ee Cabanas v. Ford, Armenteros, Manucy, Inc., 727 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(explaining that income tax returns, although not privileged, may be subject to production in discovery, but only if they are relevant); see also Danieli Corp. v. Russo, 329 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). This lawsuit is a simple action for breach of contract. There is no claim for punitive damages. There is no showing on the record how the defendant’s individual tax returns are relevant to the pending lawsuit, nor is there any…
Authorities Cited
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. McKENZIE, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Manzo v. Manzo, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, 260 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)