Regions Bank v. MDG Frank Helmerich, LLC
118 So. 3d 968
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Regions Bank (successor lender) obtained a deficiency judgment against borrower MDG Frank Helmerich, LLC and guarantors W. Patrick McCuan and William L. Klohn following foreclosure.
- Regions pursued postjudgment discovery to locate assets for execution, seeking (among other things) the guarantors’ tax returns for 2008–2010 and documents regarding trusts in which they were grantors, trustees, or beneficiaries.
- McCuan and Klohn objected, citing spousal privacy for joint returns; produced redacted tax returns; the circuit court conducted an in-camera review and sustained redactions.
- The circuit court sustained objections to producing trust documents, suggesting Regions use interrogatories or the fact information sheet instead.
- The district court reviewed distinctions between prejudgment and postjudgment discovery, emphasizing broader debtor-asset discovery postjudgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether debtors must produce tax returns (including entries showing assets held jointly with spouse) postjudgment | Regions: postjudgment asset discovery is broad; joint assets are relevant to execution and must be disclosed | McCuan/Klohn: spousal privacy protects third‑party financial information; returns may be redacted or withheld | Court reversed in part: returns must be produced; redaction for spouse accounts not allowed without specific proof and in‑camera review; Klohn’s returns (filed single) must be unredacted |
| Whether debtors must produce documents about trusts (as grantor, trustee, beneficiary) | Regions: trust information could reveal assets or transfers relevant to collection | Debtors: request overbroad, invades third‑party confidentiality, not relevant | Court affirmed: objections sustained; Regions may pursue targeted discovery (interrogatories or Form 1.977) and debtors bear burden to prove exemptions or confidentiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (financial information privacy limits pre-judgment discovery scope)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 461 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (postjudgment discovery focuses on assets available for execution)
- Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (prejudgment limits on discovering spouse-owned assets)
- Jim Appley’s Trur-Arc, Inc. v. Liquid Extraction Sys. Ltd. P’ship, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (postjudgment broad asset discovery; joint assets discoverable)
- Capco Props., LLC v. Monterey Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (postjudgment discovery of assets for collection)
- Gibson v. Progress Bank of Fla., 54 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (distinguishing prejudgment and postjudgment discovery scope)
- Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 173 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (burden on objecting party to prove discovery objection)
- Cadle Co. v. G & G Assocs., 757 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (debtor must prove property is exempt from collection)
- DeLeo v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 946 So.2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (procedural reference on nonfinal appeal jurisdiction)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for production (with in-camera procedures and burden on debtors to establish third-party ownership or exemption).