200 So. 3d 206
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Postjudgment proceedings in an alimony enforcement action: wife obtained continuing garnishments against discretionary trust distributions to husband after he stopped paying agreed alimony.
- Wife filed a supplemental proceeding and served requests for production on three trustees (including two adult children as trustees/beneficiaries) seeking trust documents showing distributions to or for the benefit of the husband and the three adult children and reasons for those distributions.
- Trustees objected, asserting nonparty adult children’s financial privacy under Fla. Const. art. I, § 23, and disputing relevancy of children’s trust distributions to the wife’s collection efforts.
- Trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing, overruled objections, found relevancy based on the long litigious history and a close link between trustees and judgment debtor, and ordered production without an evidentiary hearing.
- Trustees sought certiorari review; this court granted relief, concluding the trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure of nonparty children’s private financial information without evidentiary support of relevancy.
Issues
| Issue | Casselberry's Argument | Trustees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may order production of nonparty beneficiaries’ financial/ trust records in postjudgment discovery without evidentiary showing of relevancy | Requested documents are relevant to discover assets or evidence that husband and trustees are thwarting collection | Nonparty adult children’s financial records are constitutionally protected and not relevant absent evidence; relevancy must be shown | Court: Production of records relating to husband’s distributions is relevant, but production of nonparty children’s private financial information requires evidentiary showing; trial court erred by ordering their disclosure without such evidence |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required before ordering financial discovery from nonparties | Hearing unnecessary where relevancy is apparent from context and pleadings | Constitutional privacy warrants an evidentiary hearing to establish relevancy before compelling nonparty financial discovery | Court: Generally an evidentiary hearing should be held for nonparty financial discovery due to strong privacy interests; non-evidentiary hearing here was insufficient |
| Whether lack of transcript of the lower court hearing defeats certiorari relief | Lack of transcript prevents review | Trial court’s order shows it was non-evidentiary; transcript not required to show error | Court: Transcript not fatal; record and order demonstrate no evidentiary hearing and support certiorari relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Winderting Invs., LLC v. Furnell, 144 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (certiorari standard for discovery orders and requirement of predicate before non-debtor financial discovery)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (standard for certiorari review of interlocutory orders)
- Rowe v. Rodriguez-Schmidt, 89 So.3d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (ordering nonparty financial disclosure without evidentiary showing departs from essential requirements of law)
- Borck v. Borck, 906 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (constitutional protection for nonparty financial information)
- Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (recognizing privacy of personal finances)
- Spry v. Professional Employer Plans, 985 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (evidentiary hearing required before ordering nonparty financial discovery)
- 2245 Venetian Court Bldg. 4, Inc. v. Harrison, 149 So.3d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (postjudgment discovery scope broader; evidentiary hearing not always required when relevancy is plain from record)
- Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Nunziata, 124 So.3d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (postjudgment discovery relevant to identifying assets available for execution)
- Presley Law & Assocs., P.A. v. Casselberry, 148 So.3d 144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quashing discovery absent evidence of relevancy for third-party records)
- SPCA Wildlife Care Ctr. v. Abraham, 75 So.3d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (transcript not required when order shows hearing was non-evidentiary)
- Seal Prods. v. Mansfield, 705 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (transcript unnecessary where hearing consisted only of legal argument)