Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P. A.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-513,78-513 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 633 |
| Parties | AMEY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P. A., and Gulf Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. Rankin Terry, Jr. of Terry, Adams & Corbin, Fort Myers, for appellant.
G. Hunter Gibbons and Andrew D. Owens, Jr. of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, Sarasota, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment exonerating a law firm from liability for any damages caused by an allegedly faulty title search.
The appellant (buyer) entered into a contract for the purchase of real property. In order to fund the purchase, the buyer applied to the Lee County Bank for a $60,000 loan to be secured by a mortgage on the property being purchased. An abstract of title to the property was updated through October 10, 1976, and delivered to appellees (law firm), who were the attorneys for the bank. One of the attorneys examined the abstract and issued a preliminary opinion of title to the bank covering the period of time from the earliest public records through the date the abstract was certified. The preliminary opinion included eleven items which had to be obtained or had to be resolved before the law firm would issue a final opinion of title.
The closing of the purchase and the loan was held in the bank on November 23, 1976. The lawyer who had written the preliminary title opinion was present at the bank on other business that day, and the bank asked him to sit in on the closing in order to examine the documents which had been submitted in response to the exceptions contained in the preliminary title opinion. The bank had not requested the law firm to make any title search covering the period subsequent to October 10, 1976. The bank charged the buyer the $325 fee paid to the law firm for examination of the title.
After the closing it was discovered that on November 3, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service had recorded a lien against the property for certain income taxes owed by the sellers. The buyer then sued the law firm for damages. The court ultimately concluded that the law firm owed no legal duty to the buyer.
At the outset, we find it difficult to see how the law firm could be held liable to anyone when no one requested a title search beyond October 10, 1976. The mere presence of the lawyer at the closing under the circumstances outlined above would not change the picture. Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the law firm was negligent in not searching the public records from October 10, 1976, to the date of closing so as to be in a position to advise of the existence of the income tax lien, we cannot see how this could constitute a violation of a legal duty to one who was not the law firm's client. We are unwilling to hold that the buyer was a third party beneficiary of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.
...March 7, 1978) (Summary Judgment Order). The Florida Second District Court of Appeals affirmed, Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So.2d 633 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 68 recording, and no one requested that the law firm make a title search coverin......
-
Page v. Frazier
...unsatisfactory as a security but which would concern a buyer." Compare Lucas v. Hamm, supra, with Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So.2d 633 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (allowance of defendants' motion for summary judgment on claims of attorney-client relationship and......
-
Amis v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.
...The fact that the buyer had to pay the law firm's fee did not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 68 Amey and Amis filed this action just over a year after the Florida Supreme......
-
Dingle v. Dellinger
...or theft. See, e.g., Adams v. Chenowith, 349 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). As the court in Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), explained: Just as in Adams, there was more than one ‘side’ of the transaction before us. The law ......
-
CHAPTER 12 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
...37 Or. 380, 61 P.631 (1900); Clagett v. Dacy, 47 Md.App.23, 420 A.2d 1285 (1980); Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 367 So.2d 633 (Fla.App. 1979). [22] Breuer-Harrison, Inc. v. Combe, 799 P.2d 716 (Utah App. 1990); Guillebeau v. Jenkins, 182 Ga.App. 225, 355 S.E.2d 453 (198......
-
CHAPTER 9 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
...Or. 380, 61 P. 631 (1900). [22] Clagett v. Dacy, 47 Md.App.23, 420 A.2d 1285 (1980); Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 367 So.2d 633 (Fla.App. 1979). [23] Simmerson v. Blanks, 149 Ga. App. 478, 254 S.E.2d 716 (1979); Schwartz v. Greenfield, Stein & Weisinger, 58 App.Div.2d ......
-
1-4 Second Predicate: Attorney's Neglect of a Reasonable Duty
...and there was no allegation of intentional misrepresentation by attorneys); Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1979) (bank's law firm owed no duty to buyer for negligent performance of title sea......
-
Protecting and preserving the Save Our Homes cap.
...(12) Maillard v. Dowell, 528 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1988). (13) See, e.g., Amey v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, 367 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1979) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that lender's attorney who reviewed title for the lender was responsible for a title defe......