EVB v. Strum

Hanover County Circuit Court

EVB v. Strum

84 Va. Cir. 59, 2011 WL 10794547, 2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 272

CourtHanover County Circuit Court

DecidedDecember 12, 2011

DocketCase Nos. CM10-23, CM11-5

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Va. Cir. 59 (EVB v. Strum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hanover County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EVB v. Strum, 84 Va. Cir. 59, 2011 WL 10794547, 2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 272 (Va. Super. Ct. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge J. Overton Harris

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Quash Summons for Debtor’s Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum. The Court heard argument on December 7, 2011, and took the matters under advisement. Following thorough review of the pleadings, the memoranda and briefs filed by counsel, and the law, the Court finds as follows.

Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as the reason for the Court to Quash both the Summons and the Subpoena Duces Tecum. “There is no blanket Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions in noncriminal proceedings. The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination of the validity of the claim.” North American Mortgage Investors v. Pomponio, 219 Va. 914, 918 (1979). Further, a Defendant must assert his Fifth Amendment right in regard to each specific document, and the Court must assess the claim as to each individual document. The Debtor’s Interrogatories may be done before the Court or the parties may request that a Commissioner in Chancery be appointed to conduct the hearing.

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Summons for Debtor’s Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum is denied.

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

By Judge J. Overton Harris

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Quash Summons for Debtor’s Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum. The Court heard argument on December 7, 2011, and took the matters under advisement. Following thorough review of the pleadings, the memoranda and briefs filed by counsel, and the law, the Court finds as follows.

Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as the reason for the Court to Quash both the Summons and the Subpoena Duces Tecum. “There is no blanket Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions in noncriminal proceedings. The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination of the validity of the claim.” North American Mortgage Investors v. Pomponio, 219 Va. 914, 918 (1979). Further, a Defendant must assert his Fifth Amendment right in regard to each specific document, and the Court must assess the claim as to each individual document. The Debtor’s Interrogatories may be done before the Court or the parties may request that a Commissioner in Chancery be appointed to conduct the hearing.

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Summons for Debtor’s Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Va. Cir. 59, 2011 WL 10794547, 2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evb-v-strum-vacchanover-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack