Richard Fields v. Brandy Coletta
This text of Richard Fields v. Brandy Coletta (Richard Fields v. Brandy Coletta) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 11, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________
No. 3D24-1177 Lower Tribunal No. 16-24044-FC-04 ________________
Richard Fields, Petitioner,
vs.
Brandy Coletta, Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.
Kaplan Loebl, PLLC, and Daniel Kaplan, Liliana Loebl, and Amanda B. Haberman, for petitioner.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Hollywood), for respondent.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ.
LOGUE, C.J. In this family law case, a husband petitions to quash an order requiring
him to produce various business and financial records including federal and
state tax returns, the financial statements of businesses he owned, records concerning the sale of those businesses, bank statements, and credit card
statements, among other things. He maintains the records are privileged
under his right against self-incrimination afforded by the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution because they might show he is in criminal
contempt of various discovery orders. His opposing counsel has threatened
criminal contempt, but no motion to hold him in criminal contempt has been
filed.
We deny the petition because “the Fifth Amendment would not be
violated by the fact alone that the [tax and business] papers on their face
might incriminate the [Petitioner], for the privilege protects a person only
against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial
communications.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). And the
record does not indicate the act itself of producing the records in this context
is testimonial in nature as the records have been generated or already
shared with third parties. Cf. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 617 (1984).
Petition denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Richard Fields v. Brandy Coletta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-fields-v-brandy-coletta-fladistctapp-2024.