Fox v. Kelner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fox v. Kelner

574 So. 2d 311, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1295, 1991 WL 18268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 574 So. 2d 311 (Fox v. Kelner) 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

Fox v. Kelner, 574 So. 2d 311, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1295, 1991 WL 18268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Sylvia Fox (Fox), petitions for certiorari review of an order compelling discovery in proceedings supplementary brought by respondent, Milton Kelner. We treat this petition as an appeal from a non-final post-judgment order, and reverse and remand. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4), 9.040(c).

Fox challenges the order compelling discovery based on her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We agree that Fox may properly assert the privilege. This court recognized in Rainerman v. Eagle National Bank of Miami, 541 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), that the privilege against self-incrimination may be properly asserted by a party during discovery proceedings where the party has “reasonable grounds to believe” that the responses “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him.”

Having reviewed the record and the argument of the parties, we conclude that any of Fox’s responses may tend to incriminate her. Therefore, Fox is entitled to assert the privilege. Accordingly, the order compelling discovery is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Sylvia Fox (Fox), petitions for certiorari review of an order compelling discovery in proceedings supplementary brought by respondent, Milton Kelner. We treat this petition as an appeal from a non-final post-judgment order, and reverse and remand. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4), 9.040(c).

Fox challenges the order compelling discovery based on her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We agree that Fox may properly assert the privilege. This court recognized in Rainerman v. Eagle National Bank of Miami, 541 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), that the privilege against self-incrimination may be properly asserted by a party during discovery proceedings where the party has “reasonable grounds to believe” that the responses “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him.”

Having reviewed the record and the argument of the parties, we conclude that any of Fox’s responses may tend to incriminate her. Therefore, Fox is entitled to assert the privilege. Accordingly, the order compelling discovery is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 So. 2d 311, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1295, 1991 WL 18268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-kelner-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack