Julian Bivins, as personal representative of the ancillary estate of Oliver Wilson Bivins, Plaintiff, vs. Curtis Cahalloner Rogers, Jr., as former guardian, et al., Defendants.

Bivens v. Rogers, No. 15-cv-81298-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2016 WL 4710187 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2016) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 15-cv-81298-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN

Summary

Under Florida Statute § 90.5021, the attorney-client privilege for communications between a guardian and the guardian’s attorney belongs to the guardian, not the ward’s estate, abrogating the prior fiduciary-duty exception recognized in Tripp v. Salkovitz. The court holds that the personal representative of a deceased ward cannot waive the guardian’s attorney-client privilege to obtain discovery. Similarly, the accountant-client privilege under § 90.5055 runs between the guardian and the accountants, though the court orders in camera review of withheld confidential communications.

Holdings

  1. Pursuant to Section 90.5021, Florida Statutes, the attorney-client privilege runs between the guardian and the guardian's attorney; the personal representative of the deceased ward's estate does not hold the privilege and cannot waive it.
  2. The Florida Supreme Court's declination to adopt Section 90.5021 into the Evidence Code does not render the statute ineffective; the statute remains the law in Florida.
  3. Under Section 90.5055(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the accountant-client privilege runs between the guardians and their accountants, not between the personal representative of the estate and the accountants. The Tripp line of cases does not apply to the accountant-client privilege.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether, under Florida law, the attorney-client privilege belongs to the guardian or to the personal representative of the deceased ward's estate, specifically whether the 2011 enactment of Fla. Stat. § 90.5021 abrogates the prior case law that permitted the estate to waive the privilege.
  2. Whether the accountant-client privilege under Fla. Stat. § 90.5055 runs between the accountants hired by the guardians and the guardians, or between the accountants and the deceased ward's estate, and the appropriate scope of in camera review for withheld confidential communications.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (15)

  • Tripp v. Salkovitz, 919 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(Superseded by statute on attorney-client privilege issue)
  • Riggs Nat'l Bank of Washington, D.C. v. Zimmer, 355 A.2d 709 (Del. Ch. Ct. 1976)(Cited in Tripp; distinguished by court as involving trust beneficiaries, not guardianship statute)
  • Jacob v. Barton, 877 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(Superseded on attorney-client privilege issue)
  • State v. Carter, 177 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)(Distinguished—medical privilege case, not attorney-client)
  • Saadeh v. Connors, 166 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)(Distinguished—case involved duty, not privilege)
  • Bain v. McIntosh, 597 F. App'x 623 (11th Cir. 2015)(Applied)
  • Walther v. Kane, No. 6:13-cv-472-Orl-37GJK, 2014 WL 3695385 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 24, 2014)(Applied)
  • Barnett Banks Trust Co., N.A. v. Compson, 629 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(Discussed)
  • State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Puig, 62 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)(General principle)
  • Dykstra v. Florida Foreclosure Attorneys, PLLC, 2016 WL 3344785 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 13, 2016)(General principle)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Florida United States District Court For The Southern District