Tibado v. Brees, 67--386
| Decision Date | 28 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--386,67--386 |
| Citation | 212 So.2d 61 |
| Parties | Clarence J. TIBADO, Appellant, v. Josephine Yarnell BREES, Jane Yarnell Connelly and Mary Ellen Yarnell Edwards, as Executrices of the Estate of Josephine S. Yarnell Tibado, Deceased, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert S. Pittman of Boswell & Boswell, Bartow, for appellant.
Kingswood Sprott, Jr., of Sprott & Stokes, Lakeland, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the chancellor below which set aside and cancelled two deeds.
The instant suit was commenced by the guardian of the property of Josephine Yarnell Tibado who was the incompetent wife of the appellant-defendant, Clarence J. Tibado. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, Mrs. Tibado passed away and the above-named appellees were substituted as parties-plaintiff in their capacity as executrices of the estate of Josephine Tibado.
The appellant argues two points on appeal, the first point being that there was not sufficient competent evidence before the chancellor to support the final decree setting aside the two deeds.
Having carefully studied the respective briefs of the parties and the record-on-appeal, we are of the opinion that the final decree of the chancellor is abundantly supported with competent substantial evidence which accords with reason and logic and therefore we must affirm.
The second point raised involves a question which has not, as far as we can determine, been specifically ruled upon by the courts of Florida.
The appellant gave his oral deposition prior to the trial, at which time he voluntarily and without objection testified to confidential communications between him and his wife. At the trial of the cause the appellees introduced substantial portions of appellant's deposition including that part which contained the questions and answers relative to the confidential communications between appellant and his wife. The appellant timely objected to that portion of the deposition concerning the confidential communications when offered in evidence at the trial by appellees.
Appellant contends that Rule 1.280(f) and Rule 1.330(c)(1) R.C.P. 30 F.S.A. do not require that he make an objection to such privileged communications at the time of the taking of his deposition.
Rule 1.280(b) provides: (Emphasis ours) Under the above stated rule a person being deposed is not required to divulge any matter which is privileged and has the right to refuse to give such privileged information on deposition.
The privilege existing between husband and wife as to their communications is a personal privilege. It is clear under the law of Florida that a personal privilege may be waived and when Mr. Tibado voluntarily and without objection testified on deposition to the privileged communications they lost their confidential character. Savino v. Luciano, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 817.
In Savino, supra, the court in an accountant-client privilege relationship, stated as follows at page 819:
It should also be noted that Mr. Tibado's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delap v. State
...treat the matter as confidential, it loses its confidential character. Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817 (Fla.1957). See Tibado v. Brees, 212 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Soler v. Kukula, 297 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Defendant sought to elicit from Investigator Coppock only testimony whi......
-
Kerlin v. State
...husband and wife as to their communication is a personal privilege which may be waived by the communicating spouse. Tibado v. Brees, et al., 212 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1968). Waiver occurs by failure to assert the privilege by objection or a voluntary revelation by the holder of the communi......
-
S.H.Y. v. P.G.
...communication [becomes] apparent." Jenney v. Airdata Wiman, Inc., 846 So. 2d 664, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; see also Tibado v. Brees, 212 So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (holding that the husband waived privileged spousal communications when he appeared voluntarily and testified at his depo......
-
Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Willis, NN-314
...We note that the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, has placed this interpretation upon the rule in Tibado v. Brees, 212 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1968). In that case the question arose whether Mr. Tibado had waived his claim of privileged communication between husband and w......