Suarez v. Hillcrest Development of South Florida, Inc.
1999 WL 728757, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12211, 742 So. 2d 423 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney-client privilege does not protect a client's identity or address from disclosure, and a judgment debtor's former counsel can be compelled to provide the debtor's last known contact information to a judgment creditor to aid in execution of the judgment. Furthermore, an attorney's representation terminates upon the expiration of the time to appeal a final judgment, ending the attorney's authority to accept service of process for the former client.
Facts:
- William and Maricarmen Suarez obtained a final judgment for $442,477.00 against Hillcrest Development of South Florida, Inc.
- The judgment remained unpaid.
- Hillcrest was a Florida corporation whose shareholders, officers, and directors were all residents of Argentina with addresses unknown to the Suarezes.
- The corporation's registered office in Florida was closed.
- Hillcrest had been administratively dissolved in August 1996.
- The law firm of Hollander and Bartelstone, P.A. (Hollander) had represented Hillcrest during the original litigation that resulted in the judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Maricarmen Suarez sued Hillcrest Development of South Florida, Inc. for damages in the circuit court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, a court of first instance.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Suarezes.
- After the time for appeal expired, the Suarezes served a post-judgment Request for Production in Aid of Execution on Hollander, the law firm that had represented Hillcrest.
- The Suarezes filed a Motion to Compel Discovery in the trial court when Hillcrest did not respond.
- The trial court denied the Motion to Compel, ruling Hollander no longer represented Hillcrest.
- The Suarezes then made an oral (ore tenus) motion to compel Hollander to disclose Hillcrest's last known address and phone number, which the trial court also denied.
- The Suarezes, as petitioners, sought a writ of certiorari from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, to quash the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the attorney-client privilege protect a judgment debtor's last known address from disclosure when a judgment creditor seeks the information from the debtor's former counsel to aid in executing a judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The attorney-client privilege does not apply to facts concerning a client's identity, such as their address, and a court can compel former counsel to disclose this information to a judgment creditor. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to compel discovery served on Hollander because its representation of Hillcrest terminated when the time to appeal the final judgment expired. As Hollander was no longer Hillcrest's counsel, it had no authority to accept service on Hillcrest's behalf. However, the court found the trial court erred by not compelling Hollander to disclose Hillcrest's last known address and telephone number. Citing its precedent in Greenberg Traurig, the court held that such information is not a privileged communication and can be compelled to aid a judgment creditor in locating a judgment debtor to enforce a judgment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear boundary for when an attorney's representation is deemed concluded for purposes of service of process, holding that it ends when the appeal period runs. More significantly, it provides a vital tool for judgment creditors by clarifying that a client's basic contact information is not protected by attorney-client privilege. This precedent prevents judgment debtors from using their former attorneys as shields to evade collection efforts, ensuring that creditors have a viable path to discover a debtor's whereabouts to enforce a valid judgment.
