Finol v. Finol
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Estilien v. Dyda (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- Kelly Paton v. Geico General Insurance Co. (Fla. 2016)
- Anderson Columbia v. Brown (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
- Sasha Investments LLC v. Staghorn Development, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026)
- Rockis v. Schneider (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2024)
- Alexander Garcia v. Yellow Cab Company (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- KELLY NELSON v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
- BEACON PARK PHASE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
- KELLY NELSON v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)
- Zephyr Haven Health & Rehab Center, Inc. v. Hardin ex rel. Hardin (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
- Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Ride & Show Engineering, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2005)
- Jensen v. Sierra Grill, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Enrique A. FINOL, Petitioner,
v.
Carmen FINOL, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
H.T. Maloney of Patterson & Maloney, Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Michael A. Hymowitz of the Law Offices of Braverman and Rossi, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner husband seeks certiorari review of a trial court order allowing discovery of his attorney's fee retainer agreements and billing and payment records. He contends they are protected by the attorney/client privilege and apparently assumes, without citing any authority, that billing information in and of itself is not discoverable.
If this billing information contained descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental impressions and opinions of counsel, that information should be redacted as privileged, Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); however, the remaining information is not privileged and therefore discoverable.
This court has recently allowed discovery of defense counsel's billing records because they were relevant to plaintiff's claim for prevailing party attorney's fees. Brown Distrib. Co. of West Palm Beach v. Marcel, 866 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In this case it is relevant to the issue of alimony, child support, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. The petition for certiorari is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.