S.W. Florida Paradise Property, Inc. v. Segelke
111 So. 3d 268
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Paradise Property, a Florida corporation, petitions for certiorari review of a circuit court order denying its protective-order request and declaring all postjudgment pleadings will be treated as a nullity due to a default and a judgment after default.
- Respondents obtained a default and final foreclosure judgment against Paradise Property; after sale, a deficiency judgment was entered against Paradise Property.
- A postjudgment subpoena duces tecum for deposition was served on Mr. Pineda, Paradise Property's president and registered agent, who is not a party to the underlying action and whose personal records are not at issue in the deficiency-judgment context.
- Paradise Property sought a protective order to keep the deposition in Lee County and to shield Mr. Pineda from producing personal records; the circuit court denied the protective order and barred Paradise Property from filing any further pleadings, treating future pleadings as nullities.
- The court granted the writ, quashed the order, and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the circuit court violated due process and departed from the essential requirements of the law by precluding any merits-based challenge and by imposing a nonparty-centered deposition consequence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certiorari is proper to review the discovery order | Paradise Property argues certiorari is appropriate due to irreparable harm and denial of due process | Respondents contend the order is a routine postjudgment discovery matter | Yes; certiorari proper to review due process harms and irreparable injury. |
| Whether Paradise Property may challenge the subpoena on behalf of a nonparty | Paradise Property contends it can protect a nonparty's rights in proceedings | Respondents rely on default to bar further challenges | Yes; a default does not bar nonparties from challenging improper discovery. |
| Whether the court departed from essential requirements by treating pleadings as nullities | Paradise Property asserts absolutes of the default cannot preclude merits challenges | Respondents rely on broad consequences of default | Yes; order improper for precluding merits and nullifying pleadings. |
| Whether the deposition location and production of records were properly ordered for a nonparty | Paradise Property argues nonparty status limits compulsory deposition/production | Respondents seek broad discovery in aid of execution | Resolved in Paradise Property's favor to permit reconsideration on proper grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (certiorari review appropriate for discovery orders that depart from law and cause irreparable harm)
- Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (certiorari review for due-process-like error in proceedings)
- KG v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 66 So.3d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (irreparable harm when denied opportunity to be heard)
- Briggs v. Saldnes, 392 So.2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (nonparties may resist erroneous discovery orders)
- Rappoport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (disclosure of personal financial information may cause irreparable harm)
- Household Fin. Services v. Bank of Am., 883 So.2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (default does not bar claims to senior rights in surplus funds; admissions relate to lien priority)
- Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int’l, L.C., 839 So.2d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (nonparty discovery issues may be reviewed for location)