Goethel v. Lawrence

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goethel v. Lawrence

599 So. 2d 232, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5346, 1992 WL 104653

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1063

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 232 (Goethel v. Lawrence) 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

Goethel v. Lawrence, 599 So. 2d 232, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5346, 1992 WL 104653 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The petitioner was formerly the personal representative of an estate being administered in the Dade County Circuit Court. He is imprisoned for contempt until he obeys an order to render a truthful accounting as required by sections 733.508 and 733.901(1), Florida Statutes (1991), and now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his refusal was justified by the assertion of a Fifth Amendment claim that the accounting would incriminate him. We deny the application because the privilege was waived. This is true both (a) as a result of Goethel’s knowing acceptance of the appointment as personal representative, which statutorily requires the rendering of such accountings; see Estate of Baehr, 408 Pa.Super. 172, 596 A.2d 803 (1991); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 119 B.R. 945 (E.D.Mich.1990), and (b) because he made numerous prior representations and responses to the court concerning the subject of the accounting without then raising the privilege. Matter of Scarfia, 104 B.R. 462 (M.D.Fla.1989), appeal denied, 129 B.R. 671 (M.D.Fla.1990).

The technical objection to the form of the commitment order is likewise without merit. Revell v. Dishong, 129 Fla. 9, 175 So. 905 (1937).

Habeas Corpus denied.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The petitioner was formerly the personal representative of an estate being administered in the Dade County Circuit Court. He is imprisoned for contempt until he obeys an order to render a truthful accounting as required by sections 733.508 and 733.901(1), Florida Statutes (1991), and now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his refusal was justified by the assertion of a Fifth Amendment claim that the accounting would incriminate him. We deny the application because the privilege was waived. This is true both (a) as a result of Goethel’s knowing acceptance of the appointment as personal representative, which statutorily requires the rendering of such accountings; see Estate of Baehr, 408 Pa.Super. 172, 596 A.2d 803 (1991); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 119 B.R. 945 (E.D.Mich.1990), and (b) because he made numerous prior representations and responses to the court concerning the subject of the accounting without then raising the privilege. Matter of Scarfia, 104 B.R. 462 (M.D.Fla.1989), appeal denied, 129 B.R. 671 (M.D.Fla.1990).

The technical objection to the form of the commitment order is likewise without merit. Revell v. Dishong, 129 Fla. 9, 175 So. 905 (1937).

Habeas Corpus denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 232, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5346, 1992 WL 104653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goethel-v-lawrence-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack