HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS FIRST STATE BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
B. S. ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARLES A. BEAUDREAU, OLIVE BEAUDREAU, AND JOHN B. SHOUP, 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.
A bank appeals an order requiring production of confidential state banking examination reports and federal audit reports in connection with a foreclosure action. The court affirms the right to discovery but reverses the method of production, requiring in-camera inspection for state records and directing appellees to seek federal records directly from federal officials rather than through the bank.
The respondents have a right to attempt discovery of the requested records, but the trial court erred in directing the bank itself to produce these documents. For state records, the court must conduct in-camera inspection before any disclosure. For federal records, respondents may only be authorized to seek production directly from federal officials, not from the bank.
[1] State banking examination reports are confidential and may not be disclosed without the consent of the Department of Banking and Finance.
[2] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) audit reports are the property of the FDIC and are not to be disclosed by a banking corporation.
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“We affirm the right of the respondents to attempt discovery through the records sought. However, it appears that as to the State records, the court should first make an in-camera inspection in accordance with the law in effect on the date the order under review was entered.”
Establishes the court's holding that discovery rights exist but must be exercised through proper procedures protecting confidential information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank sought to foreclose on a mortgage held by B.S. Enterprises, Inc. and others. During discovery, the trial court …
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 In Camera Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Plaintiff Bank appeals an order dated July 14,1977 requiring it to produce examination reports which pertain to auditor inspections by the State Comptroller’s Office and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.), insofar as such documents pertain to the mortgage and loan transaction which is the basis of a foreclosure action.
The petitioner-appellant Bank contends the trial court erred in requiring it, a Florida banking corporation, to produce for inspection reports issued by the Department of Banking where Section 658.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)1 provides that such reports are confidential. Communications are not to be made public unless with the consent of the Department of Banking and Finance, and no consent was given by such department. Second, that the court erred in requiring plaintiff, a Florida banking corporation, to produce for inspection reports issued by the F.D.I.C. after an audit, where F.D.I.C. regulation # 309 provides that such reports are the property of the F.D.I.C. and not to be disclosed.2
We affirm the right of the respondents to attempt discovery through the records sought. However, it appears that as to the State records, the court should first make an in-camera inspection in accordance with the law in effect on the date the order under review was entered. As to the Federal records, the trial court may authorize the appellees to attempt to secure production of these, but should not direct the petitioner Bank to produce Federal records.
Therefore, the order under review is affirmed as to the right of inspection, but reversed as to directing the Bank to produce these records without first (as to the State records) having an in-camera inspection by the trial judge, and (as to the Federal records) the respondent should merely be authorized to seek to obtain them from the necessary Federal officials.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
. Effective July 1, 1977, the above statute was changed to read, in part, as follows:
“(2)(a) Orders of courts of hearing officers for the production of confidential records and information shall provide for in-camera inspection by the court or the hearing officer
. This provides, in part, as follows:
“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, in his discretion and pursuant to law, may authorize the production, examination, or inspection of any records, or the disclosure of any information * * * if he shall find such action to be in the best interests of the corporation and consistent with the public interest and applicable law.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Sammie Lee Stewart and Alton M. White, 445 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…Federal Reserve. See 12 [*591] C.F.R. §§ 261.6 and 261.7 (1982).1 These regulations specifically prohibit FDIC from complying with the court’s order. A similar situation occurred in Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank v. B.S. Enterprises, Inc., 353 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There, the bank was required to produce for inspection reports issued by FDIC. The reports in question were the property of FDIC and not to be disclosed. The third district reversed, holding that the lower court should authorize…