The CFP Board of Standards Inc. and a Florida couple suing the board are continuing their exchange of court motions in an argument over the production of documents in the case.
Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda contended in their latest filing on April 17 that the CFP Board should be ordered by the court to comply with requests for documents from the Camardas.
“It is apparent that [the] defendant will not comply with its discovery obligations unless and until this court issues an order compelling production,” the motion says.
The board, on the other hand, contended in a motion filed April 7 that the gathering of the information is proceeding, but that it is taking longer than expected. The Camardas are not being hurt by the delay, the board says.
In an earlier round of motions, the court ruled against the board when it tried to say the Camardas were asking for irrelevant information.
The argument, which has led to a nationwide discussion about what it means for a financial advisor to be “fee only,” is being carried out in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The dispute stems from disciplinary action the board took in 2012 against the Camardas for allegedly misusing the term “fee only” on their Web site and marketing materials.
The Camardas own Camarda Wealth Advisory Group in Fleming Island, Fla. But they also own an insurance company that receives commissions, and the board said that this disqualified them from using the term “fee only” for their financial planning firm. The Camardas claim the two companies are not connected. They also say they offered various measures to compromise with the board, but were unable to reach an agreement. The two parties have been going back and forth in court since then.
The controversy grew beyond the Camardas when the board took disciplinary action against other advisors, including Alan Goldfarb, the CFP Board chairman, for misusing the designation “fee only.” Goldfarb subsequently resigned as chairman because of the board’s action against him.