BERNICE MCCARTY, PETITIONER,
v.
ESTATE OF ELIZABETH SCHULTZ, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bernice McCarty, a private duty nurse, challenged a subpoena duces tecum issued by the estate's representative seeking her tax returns, bank statements, and other financial records. The court held that while some discovery requests were proper, tax returns and bank statements were not relevant to the estate's investigation of missing assets and constituted an improper fishing expedition.
The court held that tax returns and bank statements (items 1 and 3) are not relevant to the subject matter and may not be discovered as they constitute an improper fishing expedition. However, the list of monies received and nursing registry receipts (items 2 and 4) are relevant and within the scope of discovery.
[1] A subpoena duces tecum may not be used as a vehicle for a "fishing expedition" or general inquisitorial examination of documents.
[2] Discovery requests for personal financial documents, such as tax returns and bank statements, are not relevant to the subject matter of an estate proceeding when the reci…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant for the subject matter of the pending action”
Establishes the basic scope of discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Schultz died and her will was admitted to probate. Bernice McCarty had worked as a private duty nurse for the deceased and her sister. The e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fishing Expedition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Bernice McCarty, seeks review of an order denying her motion to quash and/or for protective order in connection with the taking of her deposition by the attorneys for the personal representative of the estate of Elizabeth Schultz, deceased.
Prior to the death of Elizabeth Schultz, Betty McCarty, a private duty nurse, attended the deceased and her sister, Reba. After the will of Elizabeth Schultz was admitted to probate respondent, Southeast First National Bank of Miami, was appointed representative. An investigation revealed that some estate assets were unaccounted for and Southeast, believing that Betty McCarty might have some knowledge of these assets, served her with a subpoena duces tecum for deposition requesting the following:
“1. Copies of the Federal Income Tax Returns for 1975, 1976 and 1977.
“2. List of all monies received from Elizabeth and/or Reba Schultz during the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 and the first 3½ months of 1978 by way of salary, gift, bonus or by any other means.
“3. Copies of your bank statements and cancelled checks from each banking institution and savings association in which you had monies on deposit for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 and the first 3V2 months of 1978.
“4. Any and all copies of receipts received from any nursing registry for salary or commissions paid to you for your services rendered to Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz during the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 and the first 3V2 months of 1978.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash and/or for protective order and contended that Southeast was using the subpoena simply as a vehicle to annoy her and to conduct a “fishing expedition”. After a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion to quash and Betty McCarty filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari therefrom. We find error and reverse.
With regard to the scope of discovery Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1) provides that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant for the subject matter of the pending action
There is no adversary action to which petitioner is a party and the alleged sole purpose of the discovery is to determine if she has knowledge of the unaccounted for estate assets. Under the circumstances, we find that Betty McCarty is not required to produce her tax returns or bank statements in that they are not relevant to the subject matter. The instant subpoena duces tecum may not be used for a mere “fishing expedition” or general inquisitorial examination of the papers with a view to ascertaining whether something of value may or may not show up. See Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1970); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
Nevertheless, we find that items 2 and 4 requested in the subpoena could be relevant and, therefore, are within the scope of discovery.
The denial order is reversed as to items 1 and 3 and affirmed as to items 2 and 4 and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted in part and denied in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara de Comercio Latino-Americana DE LOS Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…led to utilize the discovery process for a “mere fishing expedition or general inquisitorial examination of [their opponent and his] papers with a view to ascertaining whether something of value may or may not show up”. McCarty v. Estate of Schultz, 372 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The respondents argue that we should deny the petition because Scottsdale failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5) and, pursuant to TIG Ins. Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Llanes v. State, 603 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)….R. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952); Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541 (1942); Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Donestevez, 575 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); FDIC v. Balkany, 564 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); McCarty v. Estate of Schultz, 372 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Able Builders Sanitation Co. v. State, 368 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 373 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1979); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Plevy v. Plevy, 438 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…A 1977); Purvis v. Carver, 303 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). If the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a judgment, it follows that it lacked jurisdiction to enter a discovery order relating to modification. In McCarty v. Estate of Schultz, 372 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court reversed a denial of- a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum where the petitioner was not involved in an adversary action with respondent. The court said: The instant subpoena duces tecum may not be used for a mere “…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)