Scott v. Scott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. Scott

17 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15578, 2009 WL 3277335

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2009

Docket4D09-3901

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 3d 918 (Scott v. Scott) 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

Scott v. Scott, 17 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15578, 2009 WL 3277335 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review to quash an order permitting respondent to depose the attorney who represented petitioner in connection with the antenuptial agreement that is at issue in the pending divorce action. The order provides that the attorney shall testify regarding “all issues related to the Wife’s claims.”

We grant relief in part. Considering the claims as framed by the pleadings, petitioner has not waived the attorney-client privilege between herself and her former attorney. See Cuillo v. Cuillo, 621 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We recognize that section 90.502(4), Florida Statutes (2008), outlines five situations where there is no attorney-client privilege, but find that respondent has not demonstrated that any of those apply in this case. Although the deposition may proceed, the wife retains the right to interpose objections to questions that encroach on privileged communication between petitioner and her lawyer.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted in part and denied in part.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review to quash an order permitting respondent to depose the attorney who represented petitioner in connection with the antenuptial agreement that is at issue in the pending divorce action. The order provides that the attorney shall testify regarding “all issues related to the Wife’s claims.”

We grant relief in part. Considering the claims as framed by the pleadings, petitioner has not waived the attorney-client privilege between herself and her former attorney. See Cuillo v. Cuillo, 621 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So.2d 664, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We recognize that section 90.502(4), Florida Statutes (2008), outlines five situations where there is no attorney-client privilege, but find that respondent has not demonstrated that any of those apply in this case. Although the deposition may proceed, the wife retains the right to interpose objections to questions that encroach on privileged communication between petitioner and her lawyer.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted in part and denied in part.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15578, 2009 WL 3277335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-scott-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack