ROSE PRINTING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
VINCENT D'AMATO, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to compel production of tax returns.
Plaintiff sought to compel production of defendant's complete federal income tax returns to discover sources of income for final judgment execution. D…
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 Motion To Compel Production cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Rose Printing Company, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to compel production of defendant, Vincent D’Am-ato’s, complete Federal income tax returns which would reveal sources of income.
In order to execute final judgment against defendant for $44,030.18, plaintiff engaged in discovery and on August 12, 1975 filed a request for production of defendant’s income tax returns. Defendant furnished copies of his 1973 and 1974 returns (filed jointly with his wife, Dolores). Whereupon plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant to produce his returns for the years 1965-1974 and on November 25 the trial judge denied the motion. On December 22 defendant moved to correct the November 25 order as it was the court's ruling therein that since Mrs. D’Amato was not a party to the litigation, her deposition could be taken or interrogatories could be sent to her and then if it appeared as though the production of the tax returns was necessary, plaintiff could file its motion. On January 14, 1976 the judge entered the following corrected order:
* * * * * *
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order entered by this Court on November 25, 1975, shall be corrected as follows:
“1. That Dolores D’Amato the wife of the defendant, VINCENT D’AMATO, is not a party to this litigation.
“2. That the Motion to Compel Production of the Plaintiff is hereby denied as to those portions of the Federal Income Tax Returns that would reveal sources of income of the wife of defendant, VINCENT D'AMATO.”
**
As plaintiff failed to lay a proper predicate for discovery, i. e. deposition of Mrs. D’Amato under RCP 1.280 and subpoena duces tecum under RCP 1.410, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to compel production.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)…ction Systems, 526 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), inquiry into the individual assets of the judgment debtor’s spouse may be limited until a proper predicate has been shown. Tru-Arc, Inc. 526 [*1121] So. 2d at 179; Rose Printing Co. v. D’Ama-to, 338 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Failure to complete form 1.977 as ordered may be considered contempt of court. RULE 1.610. INJUNCTIONS (a) Temporary Injunction. (1) A temporary injunction may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party on…
-
JIM Appley's Tru-Arc, Inc. v. Liquid Extraction Sys. Ltd. P'ship, 526 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…vailable for levy. However, we do agree with the trial court’s rulings insofar as they prohibited discovery into the separate income and assets of Hull’s wife, individually, until a proper predicate has been shown. See Rose Printing Co. v. D’Amato, 338 So. 2d 212 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). See also § 56.29(6), Fla.Stat. (1983). As to the second issue, the denial of appellant’s motion to impose sanctions or to find Hull in contempt, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 9…
-
In re Implementation of Comm. on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations-Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 78 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011)…26 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)), in family law cases inquiry into the individual assets of the judgment debtor’s spouse must be precluded until a proper predicate has been shown. Try-Arc, Inc., 526 So. 2d at 179; Rose Printing Co. v. D'Amato, 338 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). RULE 12.620. RECEIVERS Receivers shall be governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.620, except that any inventory filed with the court shall be in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. INSTRUCTION…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence