Gladman v. Hallam, 414
| Decision Date | 18 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 414,414 |
| Citation | 104 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | Miriam H. GLADMAN, Individually and as trustee of the estate of Mary V. Hallam, deceased, and as sole surviving trustee of W. F. Hallam & Company, a dissolved Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Willard V. HALLAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, Florida, for appellant.
Jennings, Watts, Clarke & Hamilton, Jacksonville, Holland, Bevis, McRae & Smith, Bartow, for appellee.
The appellee, Willard Hallam, brought suit against the appellant, his sister, seeking to cancel numerous conveyance and transfers of assets to her from the estate of their mother made over a period of many years both before and after the mother's death in 1939, to establish a constructive trust, and to obtain a full accounting in connection with the handling of such assets because of the fiduciary relationship of the parties and alleged conversion of trust properties.
The complaint, as amended, has been sustained and a number of rulings made by the court upon permissible scope of discovery procedures. The cause is now before this Court for review of an interlocutory order of the chancellor overruling defendant's objections to interrogatories and denying her motion for protection in regard to such interrogatories.
Whether or not the interrogatories in this case, more than 1,100 in number, are on their face oppressive (see Zenith Radio Corp. v. Radio Corp. of America, D.C., 106 F.Supp. 561), a question which the trial court in its discretion determined adversely to the defendant, their content is such that in the state of the record here they improperly anticipate the accounting to which plaintiff has not been found entitled. Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla., 88 So.2d 551; Manning v. Clark, Fla., 56 So.2d 521, 523.
Many of the interrogatories in controversy are directed to a determination of actual money amounts or precise sources of payments made over a period of many years, and are not such as can be answered by personal recollection or by admission or denial of specified facts. Cf. 4 Moore's Federal Prac., Sec. 33.03(5), 2d Ed. There can be no serious contention that such inquiries can be answered without detailed compilation of data from all available sources, including books and records of the defendant and other parties, many of which are or can be made available for plaintiff's inspection. See Vol. 2, Barron and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami v. Keton
...and 1377 note; Manning v. Clark, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551, and Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46. We think the chancellor properly disposed of this question but account of the view we take it becomes immaterial. The suit was......
-
Boyd v. Walker, 70--822
...for the accounting. Manning v. Clark, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551; Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d Our decision, therefore, is limited to holding that the third amended complaint for......
-
Beekie v. Morgan
...permitted questions are limited to thirty. See Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure § 16-9; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340; Gladman v. Hallam, 104 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). A party seeking more than this must show good cause and seek an order. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340. However, the issue in this ......
-
Dyson v. Dyson
...for the accounting. Manning v. Clark, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551, Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798. Id., 334. (emphasis supplied). See: Section 620.665, Fla.Stat. (1979). We find......