Angel, Cohen and Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V.
| Citation | 512 So.2d 192,12 Fla. L. Weekly 459 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 69398,69398 |
| Parties | , 12 Fla. L. Weekly 459 ANGEL, COHEN AND ROGOVIN, Petitioner, v. OBERON INVESTMENT, N.V., etc., Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Douglas H. Stein and G. Bart Billbrough of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for petitioner.
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for respondent.
Robert M. Klein and Debra J. Snow of Stephens, Lynn, Chernay & Klein, P.A., Miami, for The Florida Defense Lawyers Ass'n, amicus curiae.
We review Oberon Investments v. Angel, Cohen and Rogovin, 492 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), because of direct and express conflict with Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied 376 So.2d 68 (Fla.1979) and Drawdy v. Sapp, 365 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
This case deals with the actions of petitioner in its representation of one Leonard Treister. Respondent brought suit against Treister alleging that, while acting as attorney and agent for respondent, Treister arranged a transaction whereby respondent sold its wholly-owned subsidiary to an undisclosed principal, actually Treister, for a certain sum while concurrently arranging a second transaction reselling the same property to a third-party buyer for a larger sum, thus defrauding respondent. In a separate count, respondent Oberon alleged that the petitioner law firm represented Treister in preparing the sale documents and should have foreseen the damage to Oberon; ergo the petitioner was negligent in preparing the documents or failing to inform respondent of the nature and extent of the transactions or in permitting Treister to use the documents for defrauding petitioner. There was no allegation that the petitioner engaged in fraudulent or conspiratorial conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that a lack of privity did not bar recovery if petitioner knew that Treister was a fiduciary for respondent and knew of the potential conflict between the interests of Treister and respondent. The court reasoned that should the issues of fact be resolved in respondent's favor, petitioner had a duty to act in the best interest of respondent. Accordingly, because there were material facts in dispute relative to Treister's capacity and petitioner's knowledge, the summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded.
Assuming as we must in the posture of the case that the petitioner was aware that Treister was a fiduciary of respondent and was obligated to act in the best interests of respondent, the issue before this Court is whether such knowledge subjects the petitioner to an action in negligence brought by the third-party respondent.
Florida courts have uniformly limited attorneys' liability for negligence in the performance of their professional duties to clients with whom they share privity of contract. Ginsberg v. Chastain, 501 So.2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Drawdy; Adams v. Chenowith, 349 So.2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The only instances in Florida where this rule of privity has been relaxed is where it was the apparent intent of the client to benefit a third party. The most obvious example of this is the area of will drafting. Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein, & Stauber, P.A., 467 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); DeMaris v. Asti, 426 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McAbee v. Edwards, 340 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Florida courts have refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. Glover
...and the corporation's attorney, even if no attorney-client relationship existed between them). But see Angel, Cohen & Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So.2d 192 (Fla.1987). [¶ 40.] Plaintiffs Pederson and Shepard have submitted no evidence to show how they were in a confidential relationsh......
-
In re Sunrise Securities Litigation
...in his professional capacity for a client. Moss v. Zafiris, Inc., 524 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Fla.1988); Angel, Cohen, and Rogovin v. Oberon Investments, N.V., 512 So.2d 192, 194 (Fla.1987). In Florida, this rule of privity has been relaxed only when it was the apparent intent of the client to be......
-
E.C. Goldman, Inc. v. A/R/C Associates, Inc.
...performance of a professional duty to the client with whom the attorney shares privity of contract. In Angel, Cohen and Rogovin v. Oberon Investment, N.V., 512 So.2d 192 (Fla.1987) the supreme court refused to relax the rule of privity in actions against attorneys for negligence in the perf......
-
Rushing v. Bosse
...of an attorney's actions and it is the apparent intent of the client to benefit the third party. See Angel, Cohen and Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So.2d 192, 193-94 (Fla.1987). We do not read Oberon as creating an exception to the privity requirement limited solely to the area of will ......
-
1-3 First Predicate: Attorney's Employment
...Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen and Heilbron-ner, 612 So. 2d 1378, 1379 (Fla. 1993) (citing Angel, Cohen and Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1987)). Florida recognizes a limited exception to this privity requirement in the area of trust and will drafting which applies to th......
-
Chipping away at the economic loss rule.
...First American Title Ins. Co. v. First Title Serv. Co., 457 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1984). (20) Angel, Cohen, and Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. (21) Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1973); A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973); Greer v. Bennett, 237 So. 2......
-
Lawyer Referral Fees and the (Unintended?) Legacy of Noris.
...(citing Oberon Investments, N.V., v. Angel, Cohen and Rogovin, 492 So. 2d 1113, 1114 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), quashed on other grounds, 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. (15) Noris, 701 So. 2d at 1240. (16) Id. at 1241, n. 5. (17) Id. (18) Economic damages include lost income, medical and funeral expens......