Facts
- Paul D. McDonald died, leaving his surviving spouse, Sandra Gill McDonald.
- Paul owned McDonald Construction Corporation (MCC), a closely held company, but the MCC stock was held as an asset of the Paul McDonald Revocable Trust of 1991 (the “1991 Trust”).
- Wiley Johnson served as trustee of the 1991 Trust, and Johnson and family members were respondents in the probate proceeding.
- Sandra sought financial information from MCC to help her decide whether to take Florida’s elective share under section 732.201, Florida Statutes (2010).
- Sandra’s discovery request focused on whether MCC’s value increased during the marriage due to Paul’s efforts—information she contended could affect the elective-share calculation.
- To obtain the records from MCC (a nonparty), Sandra served a notice of intent to serve subpoena for production of documents under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351.
- Johnson and other respondents objected, arguing that any increase in MCC’s value was not a marital asset at Paul’s death and was excluded from the elective-share calculation; they also argued MCC was not part of the probate estate.
- The probate court sustained the objections and quashed the notice, reasoning that because MCC stock was not in the probate estate, the requested information was not relevant to the elective share.
- Sandra sought review in the Second District Court of Appeal by petition for writ of certiorari.
Issues
- Whether the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law by quashing nonparty discovery from MCC on the ground that MCC stock was not part of the probate estate.
- Whether financial information about a corporation whose stock is held in a revocable trust may be relevant to a surviving spouse’s evaluation and calculation of the elective share, including potential inclusion of value increases under section 732.2155(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2010).
- Whether certiorari was available to review the nonfinal discovery order because the denial of discovery caused material harm that could not be remedied on appeal.
Decision
- The Second District Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of certiorari.
- The court quashed the probate court’s order that sustained the objections and barred the subpoenaed discovery.
- The court concluded the probate court’s relevance ruling rested on an incorrect legal premise—treating “not in the probate estate” as dispositive in an elective-share inquiry—and therefore constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.
- The effect of the decision was to permit discovery to proceed so Sandra could obtain MCC financial information for elective-share evaluation.
Legal Principles
- Common-law certiorari review of a nonfinal order requires: (1) a departure from the essential requirements of law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, and (3) harm that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.
- Discovery relevance in civil proceedings is not limited to what is ultimately admissible at trial; information is discoverable when it is reasonably related to claims or defenses and may lead to admissible evidence.
- Florida’s elective-share scheme focuses on the “elective estate,” which may include certain nonprobate interests and statutorily defined value increases, not merely assets titled in the probate estate.
- Section 732.2155(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), can make increases in value during the marriage attributable to the decedent’s efforts or marital contributions part of the elective-estate computation.
- A probate court errs by categorically denying discovery as irrelevant solely because the property at issue is held in a revocable trust or otherwise outside the probate estate when the information bears on the elective share.
- Denial of discovery may cause irreparable harm warranting certiorari when it prevents a party from obtaining information needed to evaluate or pursue a statutory right in the proceeding.
Conclusion
In McDonald v. Johnson, the Second District granted certiorari and quashed a probate court order that blocked the surviving spouse’s subpoena to a nonparty corporation held through the decedent’s revocable trust, holding that the court’s “not in the probate estate” rationale wrongly treated nonprobate status as controlling even though the requested financial information could affect the elective-estate calculation, including potential inclusion of marriage-period value increases under Florida’s elective-share statutes.