Font Size: 
Terms of Limbaugh's Divorce Settlement to Stay Private
Daily Business Review
October 04, 2007
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh may keep his divorce settlement private, a three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday.
In a 2-1 decision, Judges Richard J. Suarez and Angel A. Cortiņas denied a petition by The Palm Beach Post, which wanted a Monroe (Fla.) Circuit judge to unseal Limbaugh's settlement. Judge Gerald B. Cope Jr. wrote in a dissenting opinion that "I believe the motion for rehearing is well taken and we should grant it."
The decision instantly ignited the ire of public information advocates.
"We're concerned here with people getting special treatment in terms of keeping information private, or having different access to the courts that other people might have," said Adria Harper, director of the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee. She noted that Florida generally has strong open-records law, "nonetheless, we have a case like this, where certain prominent individuals have their records treated differently.
"Whenever we see these kinds of cases it's alarming and it's difficult for the rest of us to understand."
Cope remarked there were two legal questions at work in this case. The first dealt with whether a marital settlement is public when a trial judge reviews it, and Cope argued it was. The second question dealt with discerning the proper procedures for gaining access to such a settlement. Cope said the Post followed those procedures when it sued to see the divorce settlement.
"On the merits, the marital settlement agreement is a judicial record and must be disclosed unless there is an applicable exemption. We should remand ..." he wrote.
Limbaugh's Miami-based divorce lawyer Dirk Lorenzen did not return calls seeking comment. Jupiter, Fla.-based attorney L. Martin Reeder Jr., who represents the Post, declined comment until after he had thoroughly read the ruling.
Limbaugh filed a petition for divorce in Monroe Circuit Court on Dec. 21, 2004, and reached a settlement with ex-wife Marta Miranda two days later. The court allowed the couple to keep the settlement out of the court file, but initialed it to make it official.
News of the divorce was published in January 2005, and the Post filed a motion to unseal the settlement in March 2005.
When the newspaper discovered Limbaugh's court file did not include the settlement terms, the Post sued, alleging the agreement was part of the court file and a public record.
Without writing anything other than the word "denied," Suarez and Cortiņas agreed Wednesday with Monroe Circuit Judge Sandra Taylor, who originally ruled the settlement was not public. They cited a 2005 Ohio case, Davis v. Cincinnati Enquirer, as precedent.
But Cope wrote that the Ohio case isn't applicable in Florida, and added that Taylor's order returning the secret settlement to Limbaugh and Miranda is void "because a judgment entered without notice is void."
Since the settlement was received in connection with public business, it is therefore a public record, he wrote.
"The trial judge received it, reviewed it, initialed it, and made findings about it in the hearing on the petition for dissolution of marriage. The agreement was received by the judge in connection with the official business of the court, and is therefore a judicial record."
