Armoyan v. Armoyan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armoyan v. Armoyan

64 So. 3d 198, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10553, 2011 WL 2622569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 2011

DocketNo. 4D11-5

StatusPublished

This text of 64 So. 3d 198 (Armoyan v. Armoyan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armoyan v. Armoyan, 64 So. 3d 198, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10553, 2011 WL 2622569 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s December 15, 2010 order is quashed. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied to husband’s claim of privilege without holding an evidentiary hearing at which husband was permitted to testify. Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP v. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers, Inc., 873 So.2d 339, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). See also Walanpatrias Found, v. AMP Servs., Ltd., 964 So.2d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); IDS Long Distance, Inc. v. Heiffer, 837 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This matter is remanded for the trial court to allow the husband to testify and present evidence in response to the allegations of fraud.

GROSS, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s December 15, 2010 order is quashed. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied to husband’s claim of privilege without holding an evidentiary hearing at which husband was permitted to testify. Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP v. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers, Inc., 873 So.2d 339, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). See also Walanpatrias Found, v. AMP Servs., Ltd., 964 So.2d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); IDS Long Distance, Inc. v. Heiffer, 837 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This matter is remanded for the trial court to allow the husband to testify and present evidence in response to the allegations of fraud.

GROSS, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 3d 198, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10553, 2011 WL 2622569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armoyan-v-armoyan-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack