Membery v. Hammac

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Membery v. Hammac

357 So. 2d 483, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15729

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 So. 2d 483 (Membery v. Hammac) 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

Membery v. Hammac, 357 So. 2d 483, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15729 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Joan H. Membery, is the owner and the defendant in the trial court in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action. The contract between the parties was upon a cost-plus basis. One of the costs alleged is labor in the amount of $15,940.50. Appellant noticed the taking of deposition and issued a subpoena duces tecum to the claimant plaintiff’s bookkeeper requesting payroll tax returns in order to controvert the amount of labor involved. The trial judge granted the plaintiff appellee’s motion to quash the subpoena and denied appellant’s motion to compel production of the records.

Appellee offers no reason to show that the records were not proper for discovery, but urges that failure to appeal a prior interlocutory order denying discovery of certain of the documents was res judicata.

The order appealed is reversed upon authority of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). Cf. Fryd Construction Corporation v. Freeman, 191 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Joan H. Membery, is the owner and the defendant in the trial court in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action. The contract between the parties was upon a cost-plus basis. One of the costs alleged is labor in the amount of $15,940.50. Appellant noticed the taking of deposition and issued a subpoena duces tecum to the claimant plaintiff’s bookkeeper requesting payroll tax returns in order to controvert the amount of labor involved. The trial judge granted the plaintiff appellee’s motion to quash the subpoena and denied appellant’s motion to compel production of the records.

Appellee offers no reason to show that the records were not proper for discovery, but urges that failure to appeal a prior interlocutory order denying discovery of certain of the documents was res judicata.

The order appealed is reversed upon authority of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). Cf. Fryd Construction Corporation v. Freeman, 191 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 So. 2d 483, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/membery-v-hammac-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack