LAZARUS HOMES CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
PAUL M. GUSTMAN AND MARILYN F. GUSTMAN, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Lazarus Homes Corporation appeals an order compelling it to answer an interrogatory requesting information about other swimming pools it constructed in the same community. The court holds that the interrogatory is relevant to the breach of contract claim because evidence of other pools built to the contract specifications undermines the defendant's defense that its construction standards were acceptable.
The interrogatory is relevant and must be answered because evidence of other pools built by Lazarus to the contracted specifications in the same area is directly relevant to defeat the defendant's defense that its construction standards were acceptable.
[1] An interlocutory appeal may be treated as a petition for common law certiorari.
[2] Discovery by interrogatories is liberally construed to require disclosure of any non-privileged matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
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“The right of discovery by use of interrogatories is to be liberally construed to the end that any matter not privileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action must be disclosed.”
Establishes the broad standard for discovery and interrogatory compliance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gustmans purchased a home with a swimming pool from Lazarus Homes that was allegedly defective, being 4.5 feet deep instead of the contracted 6 fe…
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.
Defendant, Lazarus Homes Corporation, by way of this interlocutory appeal seeks review of an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel it to answer an interrogatory.
At the onset, we note that this appeal was improperly brought as being interlocutory in nature. However,'we will treat it as a petition for common law certiorari. Cf. Sanders v. Impellitier, 291 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Plaintiffs, Paul and Marilyn Gustman, filed a breach of contract action against Lazarus and essentially alleged in their complaint that Lazarus had sold them a home with a swimming pool which was defective in that it was lacking in depth, i. e. 4V2 feet deep instead of six feet, and the depth of 4V2 feet was not in accordance with the terms of the contract or the standards in the community. Lazarus answered that the pool was built in accordance with acceptable standards, i. e. as to price, location (particularly in Saga Bay) and the water table. During pretrial discovery the Gustmans propounded interrogatory number 11 to Lazarus:
“List the address of each swimming pool constructed by you in Saga Bay other than plaintiffs’ pool and the model pool.” Lazarus objected to this interrogatory on the grounds of relevancy. The trial judge overruled the objection and entered the herein appealed order compelling Lazarus to answer. Lazarus contends that the status of other pools is in no way relevant to this lawsuit and the effect of this interrogatory will be to stir up litigation.
The right of discovery by use of interrogatories is to be liberally construed to the end that any matter not privileged and which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action must be disclosed. Marine Investment Company v. Van Voorhis, 162 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Contrary to Lazarus’ contention, we find this interrogatory is relevant because it is designed to reveal other pools built by Lazarus in the same area. Lazarus admits some of these pools are six feet deep and, therefore, proof of the location and depth of these pools is relevant to defeat Lazarus’ defense.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saunders v. Fla. Keys Elec. Co-Op Ass'n, Inc., 471 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…th a computer system it had purchased from Burroughs. The trial court denied discovery as to problems another buyer had with a similar computer system, but we found such information was discoverable. In another case, Lazarus Homes Corp. v. Gustman, 340 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), we held that discovery regarding other pools built by the defendant was proper where the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that their pool had been improperly built. We stated, “[t]he right of discovery by use of interrogator…
-
Hilliard v. Speedway Superamerica LLC, 766 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…Inc. v. Martin, 739 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Thomas v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 578 So. 2d 64, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Saunders v. Florida Keys Elec. Co-op Ass’n, 471 So. 2d 88, 89-90 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Lazarus Homes Corp. v. Gustman, 340 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). There is no other evidence in the record to show that the scope of the interrogatory is otherwise burdensome, and the time period requested is less than that approved in other cases. See, e.g., Martin, 739 So. 2d at 175. The…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Marine Inv. Co. v. VAN Voorhis, 162 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Alston v. State, 291 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)