HELEN LOUISE ALTERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SIDNEY ALTERMAN, 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.
In this interlocutory appeal from a divorce modification case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court's order quashing a notice to produce documents in a 14-year-old alimony modification proceeding. The appellee had already stipulated to his financial ability to pay the requested alimony increase, making extensive financial discovery unnecessary.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the notice to produce. The court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that since appellee had already conceded his financial ability to pay the requested increase and the only question was whether appellant was entitled to an increase, extensive financial discovery was not necessary.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying discovery motions.
[2] A trial court may protect a party from unwarranted disclosure of financial details.
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 possesses broad discretion in granting or denying motions in discovery matters”
Establishes that trial courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery, as cited from Orlowitz
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen Louise Alterman and Sidney Alterman were divorced on November 13, 1963, at which time Alterman was awarded $600 per month alimony. On September …
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 Discovery Matters cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court granting appellee’s, defendant below, motion to quash a notice to produce documents at the taking of his deposition. We affirm.
Appellant and appellee were granted a divorce on November 13, 1963. At that time appellant was awarded $600 per month alimony. On September 21, 1976, appellant filed a petition for modification seeking an increase in the alimony award from $600 to $2000 per month. Pursuant to that action, appellant served appellee with a notice to produce certain documents relating to his financial status. Appellee filed a response to the petition and a motion to quash the notice to produce. On June 2, 1977, the trial court entered an order granting appel-lee’s motion to quash. From this order appellant appeals.
Appellant’s basic point on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering the order granting appellee’s motion to quash the notice to produce.
In support of her position, appellant relies upon Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1967), and Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). In our opinion, the Orlowitz and Parker cases are inapplicable to the facts of the instant action. In both of those cases, the discovery sought related to the many facets of the financial matters pertaining to an original divorce action, whereas, in the instant case the sole issue before the trial court was the propriety of an increase in the amount of appellant’s alimony which had been awarded approximately 14 years earlier in the original divorce proceeding between the parties. In the instant action, appellee responded unequivocally to appellant’s petition that he was financially able to pay the increase in alimony sought by appellant. Based on the record, neither the question of appellee’s ability to pay nor the concerns catalogued in Parker, at 500-01, are present. The only question is whether appellant is entitled to an increase in her alimony payments.
As'stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Orlowitz, at 98, a trial court possesses broad discretion in granting or denying motions in discovery matters. The Court went on to say that “[tjhere are no doubt many instances in which a court should exercise its power to protect a party against an unwarranted disclosure of the details of his financial holdings.” In our opinion, based on the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order appealed; therefore, it is affirmed. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c). See also Ortiz v. Ortiz, 194 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. Powell, 386 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ion, Powell admitted the allegation of the petition for modification that his ability to pay had materially changed for the better, and was able therefore successfully to resist the appellee’s attempted discovery on that point. Alterman v. Alterman, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1979); see Jacobs v. Jacobs, 50 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1951); Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So. 2d 933 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). .His position is that zero (Greene) plus zero (Zedeck) add up to zero. .…
-
Granville v. Paulina Delp Granville, 445 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…e modifications requested, we find that the trial court erred in denying husband’s motion for protective order in that such denial would, in our opinion, result in irreparable harm that could not be cured on direct appeal.5 Cf. Alterman v. Alterman, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Palmar v. Palmar, 402 So. 2d 20 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, husband’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. THOMPSON, J., concurs. NIMMON…
-
Eyster v. Eyster, 503 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…roceedings to address the former wife’s claim of increased financial need if the former husband stipulates to his financial ability to pay a reasonable increase in alimony. See Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Alterman v. Alterman, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1979). In this modification proceeding, since the husband admits to being able to pay any reasonable increase in alimony, the sole disputed issue is whether the wife, due to changed financial n…1 / 2
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
- Orlowitz v. Ellis K. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1967)
- Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 194 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)