Giammaresi v. Parker, s. 75--217

Decision Date06 February 1976
Docket Number75--678,Nos. 75--217,s. 75--217
Citation326 So.2d 243
PartiesRobert A. GIAMMARESI, Appellant, v. Greer PARKER et al., Appellees. Greer PARKER et al., Appellants, v. John HOMAN, III, et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James P. O'Flarity, Fort Lauderdale, for Giammaresi-Argus.

Christopher B. Knox, of Burdick and Donahoe, Fort Lauderdale, for Parker-Homan-Homark.

CROSS, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Greer Parker, Minnie Ann Homan and Homark Enterprises, instituted suit against defendants, John Homan III, Judy Homan Glecer, Robert A. Giammaresi, Sally Giammaresi and Argus Development Corporation, alleging, inter alia, in their second amended complaint that Greer Parker, Minnie Ann Homan, John Homan III, Judy Homan Glecer, and the Giammaresis orally agreed to enter into a joint venture for the purpose of purchasing and developing certain real property in Broward County, Florida; in accordance with the terms of the abovementioned agreement, Greer Parker, Minnie Ann Homan and John Homan III advanced sums of money through Homark Enterprises to the Giammaresis; the Giammaresis purchased and developed three parcels of property utilizing the monies advanced to them by Greer Parker, Minnie Ann Homan and John Homan III; the Giammaresis purchased the parcels of property and took title thereto in the name of Argus Development Corporation; contrary to the terms of the agreement, the Giammaresis refused to convey title to the parcels of property to Homark; contrary to the terms of the agreement, the Giammaresis sold one of the parcels of land and refused to account to the plaintiffs for the monies received from this sale.

The permanent relief sought in this action by the plaintiffs is money damages, imposition of trusts on the parcels of property yet titled in the name of Argus Development Corporation, and an accounting of monies and property accruing to the Giammaresis and to Argus as a result of the monies advanced to them by Greer Parker, Minnie Ann Homan and John Homan III.

Thereafter the Giammaresis and Argus moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Robert A. Giammaresi moved for an order discharging lis pendens filed by the plaintiffs against the parcels of property yet titled in the name of Argus Development Corporation.

While the abovementioned motions were pending, plaintiffs noticed for deposition one Nelson B. Olmstead, the Vice President in charge of operations at the Barnett Bank of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A subpoena duces tecum was also served upon Olmstead requiring him to produce financial records of Argus Development Corporation. Giammaresi and Argus then sought by motion a protective order restraining production of Argus' financial records on the grounds that plaintiffs were prematurely seeking discovery as to items of accounting before it was established that the plaintiffs were entitled to an accounting. Said motion was denied by order of the trial court. It is from this order that Giammaresi takes an interlocutory appeal, numbered 75--217.

Subsequently thereafter, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Fidelity and Cas. Ins. Co. of New York v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 29, 1987
  • Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 7, 2005
  • Golub v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 3, 2001
    ...permit the discovery "until the issues of the right to an accounting has been determined favorably to plaintiffs." Giammaresi v. Parker, 326 So.2d 243, 245 (Fla.App.1976). We do not find the California court's rationale in Hauk, 38 Cal.Rptr. 345, 391 P.2d 825, relied on by Golub, to be pers......
  • Colonies Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Clairview Holdings, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 15, 1982
    ...Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, 88 So.2d 551 (Fla.1956); Bartolucci v. Bartolucci, 399 So.2d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Giammaresi v. Parker, 326 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Here, the records denied by the court can have relevance only to the accounting and not to petitioner's right to an account......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT