Tennant v. Charlton
| Decision Date | 13 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 55787,55787 |
| Citation | 377 So.2d 1169 |
| Parties | Ralph B. TENNANT et al., Petitioners, v. Scott CHARLTON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Tom Whitaker, Tampa, for petitioners.
J. Bert Grandoff of Yado, Keel, Nelson, Grandoff, Casper, Bergmann & Newcomer, Tampa, for respondent.
We have for review the decision of the Second District in Charlton v. Tennant, 365 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), which conflicts with the decision of the First District in Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
In these cases, the district courts reached conflicting conclusions as to the extent of "discovery" a plaintiff seeking punitive damages may make concerning the defendants' financial resources. In Charlton v. Tennant, the Second District held that there is no reason to place financial worth of the defendants in a special category with regard to the discovery process, and it reversed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's access to the defendants' tax returns and business statements. The district court noted, however, that the trial court could limit such discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. In Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, the First District denied the plaintiff's right to discover the defendant's income tax returns and profit and loss statements because it found that these documents would not necessarily portray a true picture of the defendant's financial worth. The court did say, however, that a financial statement properly authenticated would be proper for the purpose of determining financial worth.
We approve the decision of the Second District in Charlton v. Tennant. In that case, the Second District relied upon the prior decision of the Fourth District in Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In Donahue, Judge Downey, speaking for the court, correctly identified the reasons why discovery of defendant's financial resources in punitive damages cases should not be limited to a sworn statement of defendant's current assets and liabilities:
(T)here seems to be some confusion as to the proper direction and scope of discovery in determining the financial resources of a party in a law suit. Some authorities seem to suggest that a party can simply furnish a sworn statement of his current assets and liabilities to his opponent and thereby cut off any further aggressive inquiry into his true financial capacity to respond. We know from experience that one party frequently minimizes his financial ability to respond when it is an issue in a law suit, while the other party often has a tendency to inflate that same financial ability. Even under oath a party often seems to view another party's financial resources as great or small in direct proportion to the benefit which will accrue to that party. Thus, it is the height of naivetee to suggest that a sworn statement of one's net worth must be accepted as the final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Wis. Inv. Bd. v. Plantation Square Assoc., 88-1883-Civ.
...used in some cases to coerce settlement — the legislature, in effect, overruled the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1979). There the Court ruled that plaintiffs who had pled punitive damages were entitled to discovery of a defendant's financial r......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.
...this juncture respondent has not made a request for discovery of private financial information. Therefore the holding in Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1979) and the cases pertaining to the discovery of financial information do not apply to the issues before us. We also note that ......
-
In re Johnson, No. 8:10–bk–08339–MGW
...WL 2169850, at *5–7. 36. Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So.2d 637, 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). 37. Id. at 643. 38. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla.1979); see also Rawnsley v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 227 Cal.Rptr. 806, 808 (1986) (explaining that a state statute li......
-
Church of Scientology Flag Service v. Williams
...be relevant to the subject matter and not privileged. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280. The discovery sought here passes both tests. In Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1979), the court considered the extent of discovery to be allowed on a punitive damage claim. The court quoted Donahue v. Hebert......