Cady v. Laws, 76--584
| Decision Date | 14 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--584,76--584 |
| Citation | 341 So.2d 1022 |
| Parties | Lloyd CADY and Bettie Cady, his wife, Petitioners, v. Nancy Lee LAWS, also known as Nancy Lee Moste, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Silver S. Squarcia, Miami, for petitioners.
Barbara K. Evans, Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Cocoa, for respondent-Strauss.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Lloyd and Bettie Cady to review an order of the trial court dated March 4, 1976, requiring that all future depositions in the cause be held in Brevard County, the forum of this mortgage foreclosure action.
The briefs filed by counsel are of little assistance to the court in resolving the issue between the parties. In any event, it appears that Cadys' counsel noticed opposing counsel that the depositions of various parties would be taken in Dade County on six different dates. Two days before the first deposition was scheduled counsel for one of said parties gave Cady's counsel oral notice that application would be made the next day for an order preventing the taking of one of said depositions in Dade County. Cadys' counsel was unable to attend so he notified the judge to whom the case had been assigned that he could not attend because of the short notice and another commitment. The matter was heard by another judge and the order sought to be reviewed was entered in due course.
The Cadys contend here that 1) the notice was inadequate; 2) the case was not assigned to the judge who entered the order; and 3) the judge abused his discretion in refusing to allow the deposition of Dade County residents to be taken in Dade County.
The litigation in the trial court seeks foreclosure of a mortgage. Therefore a petition for writ of certiorari is not the proper vehicle to review that order. However, we shall treat this petition as in interlocutory appeal. Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc., 320 So.2d 30 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
We have reviewed the entire record furnished us and find the only reversible error to be the breadth of the order being reviewed. The court had the discretion to determine that under the circumstances of this case the deposition of the particular parties should be taken in Brevard County, the forum of the suit. However, for various reasons it may be more appropriate to take the depositions of other witnesses or parties in other counties or outside the state. We think those questions should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahn v. Cahn
...order, and did not contact the objecting party before attempting to proceed with the deposition. Id.; see also Cady v. Laws, 341 So.2d 1022, 1023 (Fla.App.1977) ("many of the complaints expressed by the [plaintiffs] could be obviated by the exercise of a modicum of professional courtesy bet......
-
State v. Z.A.
...v. Matthews, 660 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ; Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; Cady v. Laws, 341 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Certiorari review is also available to review trial court orders taxing costs against the State Attorney's Office. See State v.......
-
Logitech Cargo, USA, Corp. v. JW Perry, Inc., 3D02-201.
...an order on the location of a defense medical examination); Donahoo v. Matthews, 660 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Cady v. Laws, 341 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We conclude that the trial court's order "does not conform to essential requirements of law and may cause material injury thr......
-
Triple Fish America, Inc. v. TRIPLE FISH INTERNATIONAL, LC, 5D02-3008.
...2000); Ayer v. Bush, 696 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cady v. Laws, 341 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). ...