Rosen v. Solomon

586 So. 2d 1348, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886, 1991 WL 205841
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 15, 1991·No. Nos. 91-2291, 91-2284·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

There is no doubt that the orders below appointing a “commissioner” — actually a master in flimsy semantic disguise — to resolve discovery disputes cannot be enforced in the face of the specific pre-hearing objections filed by the defendants-petitioners. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); accord Wilson v. McKay, 568 So.2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (agreement to previous order of reference does not waive objection to subsequent order); Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, mandamus is granted requiring the trial court itself to hear and determine those matters. Bathurst, 533 So.2d at 939. The petitions are otherwise denied. The stays previously entered are vacated instanter.

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

Rosen v. Solomon, 586 So. 2d 1348, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886, 1991 WL 205841 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

586 So. 2d 1348 (Rosen v. Solomon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Calderon v. Kalb
963 So. 2d 857 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Meenan v. Newman
662 So. 2d 1320 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)