Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

399 So. 2d 448

Docket No. 81-365.

Bartolucci v. Bartolucci

Barbara Ann BARTOLUCCI, Petitioner, v. Lisa Louise BARTOLUCCI, by and through Her Natural Father and Guardian, Ed Bartolucci, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 3, 1981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1981-06-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Although it would have been better for the trial court to have specifically found that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery because she was entitled to an accounting, we can determine from the answer and counter-claim of the petitioner that respondent does have a right to an accounting. For instance, it is admitted that the parties are joint owners of the property, the petitioner has received money from the operation of the property and in the past has made accountings to the respondent. It has not been shown the order requiring discovery departs from the essential requirements of law so the petition must be denied.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Peele v. Hibiscus Realty, Inc.

Relies on 88 So. 2d 551 - Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger · 326 So. 2d 243 - Giammaresi v. Parker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-06-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2007

7 state decisions

50198119902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Flem K. Whited, III of Leonhardt & Upchurch, P.A., Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

¶2Raymond A. Haas of Haas, Boehm, Brown & Rigdon, P.A., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

¶3

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

¶4DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

¶5In her petition for Writ of Certiorari, the petitioner seeks to have us quash the order of the trial court permitting discovery in suit for an accounting. Petitioner correctly states that before the plaintiff in a lawsuit for an accounting can examine the books and records through the usual discovery procedures it must affirmatively appear that the plaintiff is entitled, at least preliminarily, to the accounting. Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger,88 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1956); Giammaresi v. Parker,326 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Although it would have been better for the trial court to have specifically found that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery because she was entitled to an accounting, we can determine from the answer and counter-claim of the petitioner that respondent does have a right to an accounting. For instance, it is admitted that the parties are joint owners of the property, the petitioner has received money from the operation of the property and in the past has made accountings to the respondent. It has not been shown the order requiring discovery departs from the essential requirements of law so the petition must be denied.

¶6PETITION DENIED.

¶7SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

/399/so2d/448 · .json · Public domain