Financial Affidavits in Domestic Relations Cases: Sunshine Trumps Privacy A Proposed Solution

In Florida, personal financial information in family law cases is usually available to the public because of a court rule that requires parties to file detailed financial documents. Some people are worried about their privacy, but it’s hard to keep these documents private. This goes against the privacy rights protected by the Florida Constitution. No one has really looked into this issue, even though it’s become more of a problem since a change in the court rule in 1998. This article proposes a change to a rule in family court in Florida to protect the privacy of divorcing couples without children. The right to privacy has a long history in Florida, and this article will review the laws and court cases that have shaped it. In the past, there have been cases where individuals’ privacy rights were violated, and this article seeks to prevent that from happening in the future. In 1980, Florida added a new constitutional right to be free from invasion of privacy, stating that every person has the right to be left alone and free from government intrusion into their private life. This was a big change from previous laws. Before that, there was no federal or state right to privacy, and personal information could be accessed by the public. This new right of privacy was added after people expressed concerns about the exchange and access to their personal information. It was meant to provide more protection for people’s privacy. Justice Overton believed that the Florida Constitution required a balancing test to be applied to determine whether certain information should be made public. In one case, he found that the need for public accountability outweighed the employee’s privacy rights. In another case, he wanted to consider whether the doctor’s privacy rights should be more important than the Public Records Act if disclosure of the information could put people in danger. In the case of Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, the Florida Supreme Court was asked if the government could access a person’s bank records without them knowing. The court said that privacy is really important, but in this case, the government’s need to investigate gambling was more important than the person’s privacy rights. They didn’t explain how they made that decision. In Miami Herald v. McIntosh , the Florida Supreme Court set a rule for closing court proceedings. It said that court process in criminal cases should be open, and people can only be excluded for a really good reason. The rule says that the person asking for closure has to prove that closing the court is the only way to prevent a serious threat to the justice system, there are no other less strict ways to fix the problem, and that closing the court will actually help. In 1987, the court ruled that the press doesn’t have the right to access discovery depositions in a civil case, citing a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court balanced privacy rights with the public’s right to know, and in the next eight years, there were more cases about what court records should be open to the public. They decided that documents used in sentencing a defendant were public, and extended the rule to civil cases, even divorce cases. They also listed exceptions to the rule, such as protecting trade secrets or innocent parties. In 1989, the First District Court of Appeal decided to keep financial affidavits sealed in a divorce case, based on a rule that allowed the court to seal financial information in divorce cases. In 1988, the Florida Supreme Court decided if police using “pen registers” to get information about outgoing calls made by suspects violated their right to privacy. The court said the suspects’ privacy rights were not as important as the state’s need to enforce the law.

Four years later, the court made a rule that followed the standards from the earlier case. The court did this because of a proposed change to the Florida Constitution. The rule says that most court records should be public, unless the court or the legislature says they should be kept private. Justice Overton, who had supported privacy rights in the past, said the rule didn’t change the idea that court records should usually be public. This rule is still in place today. Every person in Florida has the right to inspect or copy any public record from the government, like documents or files, except for some that are kept private. This includes records from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, as well as other agencies and departments. Four years after a new rule was enacted, the Florida Supreme Court said that the rule couldn’t close any records because of a constitutional provision. In a case involving a prostitute’s client list, the court said the clients had no privacy rights because they were involved in a crime. The court also made it harder to seal financial records in family law cases. Overall, Florida courts usually don’t protect privacy rights unless the information is specifically protected by a rule or law, like medical records. The author wants to change a rule in family law to protect people’s privacy in simple divorce cases where there are no financial issues being litigated. This would mean that financial information could be kept private if both parties agree and if there are no kids involved or if the court doesn’t have the power to decide on financial matters. The current rule requires parties in a divorce to file financial paperwork so the court can decide on things like alimony and child support. But in cases where the parties have already worked things out and just need the court to approve their agreement, they shouldn’t have to share all of their financial details. The proposed change would protect people’s privacy while still making sure kids and dependent spouses get the support they need. It wouldn’t apply in cases where the parties have kids or where they settle during the court process. The rules in Florida about privacy and public records are complex. Parties involved in legal proceedings often want to keep their financial information private, but the courts have to balance this with the public’s right to know. Some cases have shown that people have a right to privacy when it comes to their financial information, but this right is not always protected. The courts have to consider whether there is a compelling reason to override a person’s privacy rights. This issue is still being debated and the laws may change in the future. Judge Judith L. Kreeger is a circuit judge in Dade County. She used to work at a law firm before becoming a judge. She is also a member of a committee that helps with family court issues.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/financial-affidavits-in-domestic-relations-cases-sunshine-trumps-privacy-a-proposed-solution/