Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons

151 So. 3d 42, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17654, 2014 WL 5462531

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

Docket3D14-1543

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 42 (Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons) 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

Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons, 151 So. 3d 42, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17654, 2014 WL 5462531 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. (“the Firm”) petitions for a writ of certio-rari, seeking to quash a discovery order that permits Jacqueline M. Simmons (“the Judgment Creditor”) to view trust account wire receipts. After obtaining two judgments against one of the Firm’s clients, the Judgment Creditor discovered that the client transferred money to the Firm. The Judgment Creditor subpoenaed the Firm requesting documents reflecting any payment of sums into and out of the Firm’s trust account for the benefit of its client. Following a hearing and in camera review of the subject wire receipts, the trial court granted the discovery request but redacted some banking information from the documents, such as the trust account number.

The issue presented is whether the trust account wire receipts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Because this financial information is not privileged in the hands of the client, it is not privileged in the hands of the attorney. Greenberg Traurig v. Bolton, 706 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtor’s assets which is held by a law firm); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a judgment debtor’s trust fund records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because “[djocu-ments which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney”).

Because the records are not privileged, the Firm has failed to demonstrate that production of the documents would constitute irreparable harm. We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450, 454-55 (Fla.2012) (“A finding that the petitioning party has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal is a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari juris *44 diction.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Petition dismissed.

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

LOGUE, J.

Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. (“the Firm”) petitions for a writ of certio-rari, seeking to quash a discovery order that permits Jacqueline M. Simmons (“the Judgment Creditor”) to view trust account wire receipts. After obtaining two judgments against one of the Firm’s clients, the Judgment Creditor discovered that the client transferred money to the Firm. The Judgment Creditor subpoenaed the Firm requesting documents reflecting any payment of sums into and out of the Firm’s trust account for the benefit of its client. Following a hearing and in camera review of the subject wire receipts, the trial court granted the discovery request but redacted some banking information from the documents, such as the trust account number.

The issue presented is whether the trust account wire receipts are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Because this financial information is not privileged in the hands of the client, it is not privileged in the hands of the attorney. Greenberg Traurig v. Bolton, 706 So.2d 97, 98-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtor’s assets which is held by a law firm); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a judgment debtor’s trust fund records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because “[djocu-ments which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney”).

Because the records are not privileged, the Firm has failed to demonstrate that production of the documents would constitute irreparable harm. We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450, 454-55 (Fla.2012) (“A finding that the petitioning party has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal is a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari juris *44 diction.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 42, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17654, 2014 WL 5462531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweetapple-broeker-varkas-pl-v-simmons-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack