The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 61.58

61.58 Confidentiality of a collaborative law communication.—Except as provided in this section, a collaborative law communication is confidential to the extent agreed by the parties in a signed record or as otherwise provided by law.

(1) PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE FOR COLLABORATIVE LAW COMMUNICATION; ADMISSIBILITY; DISCOVERY.—

(a) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a collaborative law communication is privileged as provided under paragraph (b), is not subject to discovery, and is not admissible into evidence.

(b) In a proceeding, the following privileges apply:

1. A party may refuse to disclose, and may prevent another person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication.

2. A nonparty participant may refuse to disclose, and may prevent another person from disclosing, a collaborative law communication of a nonparty participant.

(c) Evidence or information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely because of its disclosure or use in a collaborative law process.

(2) WAIVER AND PRECLUSION OF PRIVILEGE.—

(a) A privilege under subsection (1) may be waived orally or in a record during a proceeding if it is expressly waived by all parties and, in the case of the privilege of a nonparty participant, if it is expressly waived by the nonparty participant.

(b) A person who makes a disclosure or representation about a collaborative law communication that prejudices another person in a proceeding may not assert a privilege under subsection (1). This preclusion applies only to the extent necessary for the person prejudiced to respond to the disclosure or representation.

(3) LIMITS OF PRIVILEGE.—

(a) A privilege under subsection (1) does not apply to a collaborative law communication that is:

1. Available to the public under chapter 119 or made during a session of a collaborative law process that is open, or is required by law to be open, to the public;

2. A threat, or statement of a plan, to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence;

3. Intentionally used to plan a crime, commit or attempt to commit a crime, or conceal an ongoing crime or ongoing criminal activity; or

4. In an agreement resulting from the collaborative law process, as evidenced by a record signed by all parties to the agreement.

(b) The privilege under subsection (1) for a collaborative law communication does not apply to the extent that such collaborative law communication is:

1. Sought or offered to prove or disprove a claim or complaint of professional misconduct or malpractice arising from or relating to a collaborative law process; or

2. Sought or offered to prove or disprove abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of a child or an adult unless the Department of Children and Families is a party to or otherwise participates in the process.

(c) A privilege under subsection (1) does not apply if a tribunal finds, after a hearing in camera, that the party seeking discovery or the proponent of the evidence has shown that the evidence is not otherwise available, the need for the evidence substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and the collaborative law communication is sought or offered in:

1. A proceeding involving a felony; or

2. A proceeding seeking rescission or reformation of a contract arising out of the collaborative law process or in which a defense is asserted to avoid liability on the contract.

(d) If a collaborative law communication is subject to an exception under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c), only the part of the collaborative law communication necessary for the application of the exception may be disclosed or admitted.

(e) Disclosure or admission of evidence excepted from the privilege under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) does not make the evidence or any other collaborative law communication discoverable or admissible for any other purpose.

(f) The privilege under subsection (1) does not apply if the parties agree in advance in a signed record, or if a record of a proceeding reflects agreement by the parties, that all or part of a collaborative law process is not privileged. This paragraph does not apply to a collaborative law communication made by a person who did not receive actual notice of the collaborative law participation agreement before the communication was made.

History.—s. 7, ch. 2016-93.

F.S. 61.58 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.58 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.58

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.58

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.58.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

In BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION. To, 763 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . On March 12, 2008 Bear Stearns’ stock closed at $61.58 per share, down from a close of $62.97 per share . . .

PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. d b a, 712 F. Supp. 2d 405 (E.D. Pa. 2010)

. . . . § 61.58(a)(1). . . .

AD HOC TELECOMMUNICATIONS USERS COMMITTEE, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AT T, 572 F.3d 903 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

. . . . §§ 61.38, 61.41, 61.58 with id. §§ 1.773(a)(ii), 61.23(c). . . .

v., 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 1255 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)

. . . period of [review] is zero percent” and (2) “Eletrosilex’s dumping margin for th[at] period ... is 61.58 . . .

v. C, 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 508 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)

. . . Department considered the fact that, in the 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 PORs, [it] calculated dumping margins of 61.58 . . . calculated rates for the first through fifth administrative reviews were 53.63 percent, 51.84 percent, 61.58 . . .

v. De S. A. S. A. v., 27 Ct. Int'l Trade 868 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003)

. . . ) investigation), 93.20 (highest rate calculated for any respondent during the LTFV investigation), 61.58 . . .

AMERICAN SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, v. UNITED STATES, De S. A. S. A. v., 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003)

. . . ) investigation), 93.20 (highest rate calculated for any respondent during the LTFV investigation), 61.58 . . .

Co. v. S. A. S. A. v. Co., 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1216 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . calculated rates for the first through fifth administrative reviews were 53.63 percent, 51.84 percent, 61.58 . . .

AMERICAN SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, v. UNITED STATES, De S. A. S. A. v., 240 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002)

. . . calculated rates for the first through fifth administrative reviews were 53.63 percent, 51.84 percent, 61.58 . . .

FAX TELECOMMUNICACIONES INC. v. AT T,, 138 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . . §§ 61.58(e)(6), 61.42(c)(8). . . .

TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO., 919 F. Supp. 472 (D.D.C. 1996)

. . . . § 61.58(c)(1). . . .

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI, 10 F.3d 892 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

. . . . § 61.58, which requires advance notice of forty-five days before a tariff filing may become effective . . . Pursuant to § 61.58, the proposed increase could take effect no earlier than January 18, 1991, two weeks . . .

E. WOOLSEY, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, 993 F.2d 516 (5th Cir. 1993)

. . . Section 61.58 establishes rules for periodic proficiency cheeks or flight checks which are similar to . . . The record fails to show whether Woolsey did in fact comply with § 61.58 and whether the NTSB’s complaint . . . time or a money fine would have been the appropriate penalty if he did in fact get retested on the § 61.58 . . . other hand, if Woolsey was not retested at all for periods of time longer than those required under § 61.58 . . . applicability of Part 135, even if correct, would still leave him in noncompliance with §§ 91.5 and 61.58 . . .

In AIR DISASTER. BURKE, a a v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., 819 F. Supp. 1352 (E.D. Mich. 1993)

. . . 61.43 (Flight test general procedures), § 61.57 (Recent flight experience: Pilot in command), and § 61.58 . . .

OLYMPIA USA, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 6 Cl. Ct. 550 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . In calculating the LCC value for the IBM Selectric III B01, GSA used a replacement ribbon cost of 61.58 . . . Olympia contends that the use of this price in IBM’s LCC evaluations is improper because (1) the 61.58 . . . testing of the IBM Selectric III B01 typewriter is available under GSA contract from Burroughs Corp. for 61.58 . . . This is sufficient to establish a rational basis for GSA’s use of the 61.58 cent ribbon. . . .

ALASCOM, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ISA PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ISA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Co. ISA GTE U. S. MCI NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ISA, 727 F.2d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

. . . . §§ 61.15a, 61.38-61.39, 61.58(f), 63.07, 63.61, 63.71, 63.90), a policy of minimal tariff regulation . . .

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. CBS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 682 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1982)

. . . . § 61.58, notified customers of the proposed rate changes. . . . requirements of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 203(b), and the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 . . .

AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Co. AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MCI GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CBS, Co., 642 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980)

. . . . § 61.58 (1977). . . . .

v., 72 T.C. 117 (T.C. 1979)

. . . Duane Fisher was a 10-percent vested participant and received $61.58 from petitioner’s contribution for . . .

NADER B. III, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. MCI v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,, 520 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1975)

. . . . § 61.58 (1974). The validity of this modification was upheld in AT&T v. . . .

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 503 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1974)

. . . F.C.C.2d 957 (1970), reconsideration denied, 40 F.C.C.2d 149 (1973), in which the FCC adopted Rule 61.58 . . . , now codified at 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (1973), which revises the procedures that govern the filing of interstate . . . consulted, permits the Commission to extend the notice period from 30 to 60 days as it has done in Rule 61.58 . . . All have argued in support of the FCC regulation. . 47 C.F.R. § 61.58 (1978) provides: Every tariff irablication . . . In view of the adoption of the new Rule 61.58, subdivision (b) of the above regulation was modified to . . .

W. WIRTZ, v. COMPANIA DE SERVICIOS ELECTRICOS, S. A. P. W. De S. A., 304 F. Supp. 697 (D.C.Z. 1967)

. . . Rolando 20.00 Aizpurua, Victor A. 43.12 Aldama, Teodoro 16.26 Ambulo, Licurgo 59.70 Angeles, Ascanio A. 61.58 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BEUTEL, 99 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Ky. 1951)

. . . Clark, during the period from May 1, 1948 to December 1, 1948, rental at the rate of $61.58 per month . . .

v., 6 T.C. 96 (T.C. 1946)

. . . discontinued its advertising business and collected all of its accounts receivable from clients except for $61.58 . . . The account for $61.58 was closed in 1938. . . .

In VICKSBURG BRIDGE TERMINAL CO., 29 F. Supp. 225 (S.D. Miss. 1938)

. . . Anderson at Court Hearing on 5/3/38.......... 71.29 61.58 Total ........................$8,638.58 $3,946.85 . . .

THE MANUEL ARNUS. M. BINKOVITZ SONS, v. COMPANIA TRANSATLANTICA, 10 F. Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y. 1935)

. . . Lat. 57.19 N., Long. 26.30 W.) reported 10; steamship Liberty on February 21st (Lat. 36.14 N., Long. 61.58 . . .