PAPER CORPORATION OF AMERICA D/B/A SAXON PAPER-FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD J. SCHNEIDER AND BARRY GARFIELD, APPELLEES
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.
Paper Corporation of America appeals a protective order that prevented it from deposing the judgment debtor's accountant and obtaining financial records in post-judgment execution proceedings. The court reversed, holding that a judgment debtor cannot shield financial disclosures through the accountant-client privilege.
The court held that a judgment debtor is not privileged to withhold relevant financial disclosure in post-judgment execution proceedings, and cannot shield financial records from discovery by turning them over to an accountant who then asserts the privilege. The accountant-client privilege does not apply to financial records that would not be privileged in the debtor's own hands.
[1] Financial records and data that are not privileged in the hands of a client cannot be shielded from discovery by transferring them to the client's accountant.
[2] A judgment debtor cannot assert the accountant-client privilege to withhold relevant financial disclosure in post-judgment execution proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the defendant was not privileged to withhold the otherwise relevant financial disclosure stated above in these post-judgment execution proceedings if deposed or served with a subpoena duces tecum”
Establishes the core holding that accountant-client privilege does not apply in execution proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaper Corporation of America obtained a judgment against Barry Garfield and sought to execute on the judgment by deposing Howard J. Schneider, Garfiel…
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 Accountant-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Paper Corporation of America d/b/a Saxon Paper-Florida, a judgment creditor, from an adverse non-final order entered in post-judgment execution proceedings brought against the defendant Barry Garfield, a judgment debtor. The non-final order under review grants the defendant’s motion for a protective order and thereby precludes the plaintiff from (1) taking the deposition of Howard J. Schneider, the defendant’s accountant, and (2) requiring Howard J. Schneider to produce copies of the defendant’s income tax returns, the defendant’s financial statements, and other records of the defendant’s assets and liabilities, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum; the subject non-final order also assesses $200 in attorney’s fees against the plaintiff to be paid to Howard J. Schneider’s counsel. The legal basis for entering the subject protective order was that the financial disclosure sought by the deposition and subpoena duces tecum was barred by the accountant-client privilege. §§ 90.5055, 473.316, Fla.Stat. (1989).
We reverse the order under review upon a holding that (a) the defendant was not privileged to withhold the otherwise relevant financial disclosure stated above in these post-judgment execution proceedings if deposed or served with a subpoena duces tecum, Jim Appley’s Tru-Arc, Inc. v. Liquid Extraction Sys. Ltd. Partnership, 526 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the accountant. Financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client’s accountant. See Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Both the protective order and the assessment of attorney’s fees herein must therefore be reversed and the plaintiff upon remand shall be allowed to depose Howard J. Schneider and to enforce the subpoena duces tecum served upon Mr. Schneider. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
PDR Grayson Dental LAB, LLC v. Progressive Dental Reconstr., Inc., 203 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…tain, to its accounting firm. “Financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client’s accountant.” Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (requiring production of accountant’s copies of client’s income tax returns, financial statements, and records of the defendant’s assets and liabilities). We find that Purchaser would be irreparably harmed by not obtaining…
-
Celotex Corp. v. Hillsborough Holdings Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 176 B.R. 223 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…ed by accountant concerning the viability of a contract is privileged). However, a client cannot shield non-privileged financial information from discovery by turning the information over to its accountant. Paper Corp. of America v. Schneider, 563 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The parties to this appeal do not contest that the privilege was inapplicable to copies of documents provided by JWC to PW, and requested during discovery. Instead, Appellees argue that the various notations contained on thos…
-
W. Coast Invs., LLC v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2020)…begin with, this case does not present the situation of a litigant who gives his accountant financial records for the strategic purpose of using the accountant-client privilege to shield them from discovery. Compare Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). Based on the record before this Court, this Court assumes that the Association gave its financial records to LKD for bona fide accounting services. Consequently this Court finds Horton's reliance on Schneider unpersuasive in th…
Authorities Cited
- JIM Appley's Tru-Arc, Inc. v. Liquid Extraction Sys. Ltd. P'ship, 526 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Seymour Silverman v. Anne Turner and Paul Turner, 188 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Gruman v. Bankers Tr. Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Goldberg v. Eli Ross, 421 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 423 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)