Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, P.A.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-01071,89-01071 |
| Citation | 555 So.2d 455 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D229 BILL BRANCH CHEVROLET, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PHILIP L. BURNETT, P.A., a Professional Association, and Philip Burnett, individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Susan E. Trench of Goldstein & Tanen, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
James F. McKenzie of McKenzie, Millsap & Soloway, P.A., Pensacola, for appellees.
The appellant, Branch Chevrolet, Inc., charges error in the dismissal of count two of its complaint for legal malpractice. The appellant filed a two-count complaint against the lawyer and law firm that had represented it in two separate legal matters. The trial court dismissed with prejudice the second count, which was based on an action that had settled, for failure to state a cause of action. The court concluded that where a suit settles before trial, no cause of action for attorney malpractice will lie. We reverse.
An action for legal malpractice must allege the employment of the attorney and neglect of a reasonable duty that has been the proximate cause of loss to his client. Thompson v. Martin, 530 So.2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Nicholauson v. Rhyne, 529 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The complaint alleged that the appellant had employed Philip L. Burnett, P.A., and Philip Burnett, the appellees, in a litigation matter; that three weeks before trial, it discovered the appellees' failure to investigate or conduct discovery necessary to adequately prepare for trial; and that, faced with a claim for punitive damages and no trial preparation, it was forced to settle the case for a sum greater than its actual liability.
Considering the allegations in the light most favorable to the appellant and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, we find that the required elements of legal malpractice were adequately alleged. See e.g., Dykema v. Godfrey, 467 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
The appellees argue that the settlement of the underlying case is an affirmative defense to the appellant's legal malpractice action. The general rule is that where an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint, it may be considered by the trial court on a motion to dismiss. Hawkins v. Williams, 200 So.2d 800 (Fla.1967); Goodman v. Habif, 424 So.2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Vaswani v Ganobsek, 402 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Margerum v. Ross Builders, Inc., 427 So.2d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). As the settlement was alleged in the complaint, it was the proper subject of an affirmative defense in the appellees' motion to dismiss. See Keramati v. Schackow, 553 So.2d 741, 744-46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
In considering an affirmative defense raised in a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that all facts alleged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Bethea
...Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571 (Ala.1985); Callahan v. Clark, 321 Ark. 376, 901 S.W.2d 842 (1995); Bill Branch Chev. v. Philip L. Burnett, 555 So.2d 455 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); McCarthy v. Pedersen & Houpt, 250 Ill.App.3d 166, 190 Ill.Dec. 228, 621 N.E.2d 97 (1993); Braud v. New Engla......
-
Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky
...cases if the attorney's conduct has damaged the client. See Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571 (Ala.1985); Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Burnett, 555 So.2d 455 (Fla.App.1990); McCarthy v. Pedersen & Houpt, 250 Ill.App.3d 166, 190 Ill.Dec. 228, 621 N.E.2d 97 (1993); Braud v. New England I......
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton
...and diligence; and 3.) that such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff. Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, P.A., 555 So.2d 455, 455 (Fla.App.1990); Thompson v. Martin, 530 So.2d 495, 496 (Fla.App.1988). An attorney's reasonable duties require an attorn......
-
Prande v. Bell
...190 Ill.Dec. 228, 621 N.E.2d 97, appeal denied, 153 Ill.2d 561, 191 Ill.Dec. 621, 624 N.E.2d 809 (1993); Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Burnett, 555 So.2d 455 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); Braud v. New England Ins. Co., 534 So.2d 13 (La.Ct.App.1988); Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1......
-
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
...646 A.2d 195 (1994). 39. Id. at 175, citing Edmonson v. Dressman, 469 So. 2d 571, (Ala. 1985); Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Burnett, 555 So. 2d 455 (Fla. App 1990); McCarthy v. Pedersen & Houpt, 250 Ill.App. 3d 166, 621 N.E. Brand v. New England Ins. Co., 534 So.2d 13 (La. App. 1988); Fis......
-
4-2 Estoppel
...of law, negate "any alleged legal malpractice as a proximate cause of loss." Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, P.A., 555 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Instead, "[t]his is a matter of proof for trial." Id.16 The second argument was rejected because [it] is inconsistent w......
-
9-2 Compensatory Damages
...at *5 (S.D. Fla.), motion to amend denied, 2009 WL 10667471 (S.D. Fla. 2009).[11] Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, P.A., 555 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1990).[12] Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, P.A., 555 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 199......