Posner de Mildenberg v. Grancolombiana Corporacion Financiera, S.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Posner de Mildenberg v. Grancolombiana Corporacion Financiera, S.A.

492 So. 2d 1093, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1496, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 1986

DocketNo. 86-570

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 492 So. 2d 1093 (Posner de Mildenberg v. Grancolombiana Corporacion Financiera, S.A.) 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

Posner de Mildenberg v. Grancolombiana Corporacion Financiera, S.A., 492 So. 2d 1093, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1496, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the petitioner that the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law when it permitted contingent creditors to take pre-judgment discovery in aid of execution. See In re Estate of Shaw, 340 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The caveats filed by the respondents pursuant to section 731.110, Florida Statutes (1983), are ample protection of their interests. See Gomez v. Jackson Memorial Hospital, 309 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We, therefore, grant certiorari and quash the order denying petitioner’s motions for protective orders. We decline to review, however, the orders denying the petitioner’s motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Association, Inc., 436 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Vanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 378 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Certiorari granted; order denying petitioner’s motions for protective orders quashed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the petitioner that the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law when it permitted contingent creditors to take pre-judgment discovery in aid of execution. See In re Estate of Shaw, 340 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The caveats filed by the respondents pursuant to section 731.110, Florida Statutes (1983), are ample protection of their interests. See Gomez v. Jackson Memorial Hospital, 309 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We, therefore, grant certiorari and quash the order denying petitioner’s motions for protective orders. We decline to review, however, the orders denying the petitioner’s motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., Harte v. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Association, Inc., 436 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Vanco Construction, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 378 So.2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Certiorari granted; order denying petitioner’s motions for protective orders quashed.

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure

Supreme Court of Florida, 2021

Delmonico v. Crespo

59 So. 3d 337 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules

948 So. 2d 735 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)

Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules

824 So. 2d 849 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 So. 2d 1093, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1496, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/posner-de-mildenberg-v-grancolombiana-corporacion-financiera-sa-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack