Tripp v. Salkovitz

• Decision Date: 08 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2D05-1458.,2D05-1458.
• Citation: 919 So.2d 716
• Parties: Thomas G. TRIPP and Adult Comprehensive Protection Services, Inc., Petitioners, v. Diane Patricia SALKOVITZ, individually; Alison A. Carpenter, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark J. Salkovitz, deceased; Gabrielle Ayala; and Patricia Johnson, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

919 So.2d 716

Thomas G. TRIPP and Adult Comprehensive Protection Services, Inc., Petitioners, v.Diane Patricia SALKOVITZ, individually; Alison A. Carpenter, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark J. Salkovitz, deceased; Gabrielle Ayala; and Patricia Johnson, Respondents.

No. 2D05-1458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 8, 2006.

James L. Sullivan and Bradley T. Guldalian of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Tampa, for PetitionerThomas G. Tripp.

Paul Scherer, St. Petersburg, for PetitionerAdult Comprehensive Protection Services.

M. Katherine Ramers of M. Katherine Ramers, P.A., Dunedin, for Respondents.

DAVIS, Judge.

Thomas G. Tripp and Adult Comprehensive Protection Services, Inc.("Petitioners"), petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's nonfinal discovery order that determined that Alison A. Carpenter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mark J. Salkovitz, deceased ("the Estate"), is the holder of the attorney-client privilege for all communications between Petitioners occurring after the appointment of Adult Comprehensive Protection Services ("ACPS") as plenary guardian of Mark J. Salkovitz("the Ward").The trial court's order also required Petitioners to produce all written communications between Tripp and ACPS after January 7, 2002, for an in camera inspection by the court.We grant the petition in part.

On January 7, 2002, ACPS was appointed by the trial court to serve as the plenary guardian of the Ward.ACPS retained Tripp to serve as its attorney in the provision of services to the guardianship.

Following the Ward's death, his daughter, Alison A. Carpenter, opened his estate and was appointed Personal Representative.Carpenter, as Personal Representative of the Estate, and Diane Patricia Salkovitz, the Ward's widow, filed a complaint for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Petitioners.The allegations regarded Petitioners' failure to properly manage the Ward's financial affairs and to protect the residence from foreclosure sale.

As a part of the discovery process, the Personal Representative sought to compel Petitioners to produce documents regarding the confidential communications between ACPS and Tripp during the guardianship time period.Additionally, the Personal Representative asked the trial court to determine whether ACPS could raise the attorney-client privilege at deposition in response to questions related to confidential communications between Tripp and ACPS.The trial court granted the Personal Representative's motions, ordering the production of the documents for an in camera inspection and determining that the attorney-client privilege belonged to the Estate, thereby precluding ACPS from raising the privilege.Petitioners now ask this court to quash that order.

In reaching its conclusions, the trial court relied on Jacob v. Barton,877 So.2d 935(Fla. 2d DCA2004).Although that case dealt with a trust situation instead of a guardianship, the trial court found the reasoning regarding the fiduciary relationships persuasive.Relying on that reasoning, however, the trial court reached inconsistent results on the two issues presented.First, the trial court determined that the privilege belonged to the Estate as the Ward's successor in interest.The implication of that finding is that, at deposition, ACPS could not invoke the attorney-client privilege to protect private communications it had with its attorney, Tripp.However, the same order also required that the written documents representing such communications be presented to the trial court for an in camera inspection to determine which documents must be produced to the Personal Representative.The implication of this provision is that some communications may be protected from disclosure by ACPS' attorney-client privilege, while others may not.

In Jacob,this court explained who holds the attorney-client privilege in trust situations:

...