Adkins v. Sotolongo
227 So. 3d 717
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Child-custody dispute between Christa Adkins (mother) and Michael Sotolongo (father); a court-appointed guardian ad litem (guardian) and the guardian’s attorney billed fees.
- This Court previously reversed an order on guardian fees for lack of findings and remanded for determination of responsible party and proper amount (Adkins v. Sotolongo).
- On remand, Adkins (declared indigent) sought discovery focused on the guardian’s services and the reasonableness of billed fees, including the guardian’s deposition.
- The guardian demanded payment before providing further time; the trial court ordered Adkins to advance the guardian’s and the guardian’s attorney’s fees (including costs for the deposition) as a prerequisite to taking the deposition.
- The trial court also granted a protective order limiting the deposition and denied Adkins’ motion to compel responses, effectively preventing pre-hearing discovery into the basis for the fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lawfully required Adkins (indigent) to advance guardian and counsel fees before taking guardian’s deposition | Adkins: prepayment requirement bars her from meaningful discovery and defense; she is indigent and court hasn’t determined who must pay | Guardian/Trial court: guardian entitled to payment for services and may condition further participation on payment | Court: Requirement to advance fees before deposition departs from essential requirements of law; certiorari granted |
| Whether denial/limitation of deposition and discovery constitutes irreparable harm justifying certiorari | Adkins: denial effectively prevents her from preparing defense to fee claim; harm cannot be remedied on appeal | Guardian: denial/protective order appropriate given unpaid fees and concerns; trial court discretion | Court: Denial/effective preclusion of deposition causes irreparable harm; certiorari review appropriate |
| Whether the trial court complied with prior remand (Adkins v. Sotolongo) | Adkins: trial court failed to determine responsible party and ability to pay before imposing advance payment requirement | Trial court: acted to secure payment for guardian’s services | Court: Trial court’s order violated substance/intent of prior opinion; remand required determination of responsibility and amount |
| Whether precluding cross-examination at hearing without prior deposition was proper | Adkins: cross-examination was necessary and trial court’s direction to take deposition then blocked was prejudicial | Trial court: required discovery deposition before cross-examination | Court: Precluding ability to obtain deposition in advance was error because it denied meaningful opportunity to defend fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. Sotolongo, 197 So.3d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (remanded for trial court to determine responsible party and proper amount for guardian’s fees)
- Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (denial of deposition of material witness may be irreparable and subject to certiorari)
- Banco Latino (S.A.C.A.) v. Kimberly, 979 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (certiorari appropriate where discovery order departs from essential requirements of law causing material injury)
- Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (denial of right to depose material witness constitutes irreparable harm)
- Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So.3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (when discovery denial effectively eviscerates a party’s claim or defense, certiorari may be appropriate)