Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski

Decision Date18 September 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-572,84-572
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
PartiesRoberta BLATT, as Guardian of Vera Horn, Incompetent and Estate of Vera Horn, Appellant, v. GREEN, ROSE, KAHN & PIOTRKOWSKI and Howard Rose, Appellees.

Albert J. Zemlock, Miami, for appellant.

Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski and Howard Green, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

Roberta Blatt, as guardian of Vera Horn, incompetent, and estate of Vera Horn, deceased, appeals an order dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice as against Howard Rose, individually, and as a member of Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, a lawyer partnership. We reverse.

Vera Horn lived with Albert Gersh as his common-law wife for about 25 years. Gersh died on March 2, 1982, leaving $5,000 to Horn and his residuary estate to Gloria Reinhart, his granddaughter, and her children, Peter Lustig and Neil Lustig. An agreement was entered into between these beneficiaries whereby Reinhart and the Lustigs transferred and assigned to Horn thirty per cent of the residual portion of Gersh's estate in return for Horn's relinquishment of any and all claims against the estate. This written agreement was drawn up by Rose and was signed by the four beneficiaries. 1

Initially, Horn and Peter Lustig were appointed personal representatives of the estate. Shortly thereafter, however, Horn suffered a stroke which ultimately led to her being declared incompetent, with Blatt, her niece being appointed her guardian. Subsequently, Horn died leaving her entire estate to Blatt, who was appointed personal representative of Horn's estate.

When Horn had fallen ill, she was removed as personal representative of Gersh's estate. In her place, Reinhart and Neil Lustig were appointed as personal representatives. Thus, the three residuary beneficiaries became co-personal representatives of the estate.

Rose, a partner in Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, was the resident agent of Reinhart and the Lustigs, all of whom lived outside the state of Florida. Rose was retained by Reinhard and the Lustigs, in their capacity as personal representatives of Gersh's estate, to represent them in the administration of the estate. While in this position, Rose received a number of letters from Horn's attorney which sought an accounting of the estate so that Horn's share under the agreement could be determined. It is alleged that Rose ignored these letters until after the assets of the estate had been distributed.

Blatt brought this action charging in part that Rose had conspired with Reinhart and the Lustigs to deprive Horn of the thirty per cent of the residuary estate to which she was entitled pursuant to the agreement. Upon motion, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the complaint as against Rose and the law firm of which he is a partner. This appeal followed.

The gist of a civil action for conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself, but the civil wrong which is done pursuant to the conspiracy and which results in damage to the plaintiff. Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So.2d 582 (Fla.1950); American Diversified Insurance Services, Inc. v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co., 439 So.2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District, 403 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Thus, a cause of action for civil conspiracy exists in the present case only if "the basis for the conspiracy is an independent wrong or tort which would constitute a cause of action if the wrong were done by one person." 2 American Diversified, 439 So.2d at 906. We must examine the complaint, therefore, to determine whether it states a cause of action in civil conspiracy based upon an independent wrong.

The complaint alleges that Rose prepared the agreement whereby the residuary beneficiaries assigned thirty per cent of the residual portion of the estate to Horn, and Horn relinquished all claims she might have against the estate, as Gersh's widow or otherwise. 3 It also alleges that Reinhart and the Lustigs, as personal representatives of Gersh's estate, failed to pay the thirty per cent portion, although demanded. Further, it is apparent that all the parties involved were fully aware of the agreement at all times. The complaint further alleges that Rose obtained court orders and took other various steps to have the assets of the estate distributed without regard to the agreement. Finally, it is alleged that Reinhart and the Lustigs "being the sole beneficiaries and personal representatives of the Estate[,] distributed all of the assets of the ESTATE OF ALBERT GERSH to themselves" without regard to the previously-entered agreement.

We find that the complaint states a cause of action for civil conspiracy based upon an independent wrong, specifically: a violation of the fiduciary duty imposed by the Florida Probate Code. It is clear that Horn, Reinhart and the Lustigs were all "interested persons" within the meaning of the code. § 731.201(21), Fla.Stat. (1981). Section 733.815 provides in pertinent part that:

competent interested persons may agree among themselves to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Tew v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • January 22, 1990
    ...of conspiracy. See Dozier & Gay Paint Co., Inc. v. Dilley, 518 So.2d 946, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, 456 So.2d 949, 950-51 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984); Lake Gateway Motor Inn v. Matt's Sunshine, Etc., 361 So.2d 769, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Valden Sportswear ......
  • In re Chira
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • November 20, 2006
    ...dicta). A breach of fiduciary duty can also form the basis for an independent tort of civil conspiracy. Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, 456 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (attorney assisted personal representative in distributing in derogation of fiduciary duty to pay assigned ......
  • Rushing v. Bosse
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1995
    ...that violation of this rule provides an independent wrong on which to base civil conspiracy. Compare Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, 456 So.2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Additionally, absolute immunity would be afforded to any conduct by defendants occurring during the course of the ......
  • SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • September 4, 2014
    ...or tort which would constitute a cause of action if the wrong were done by one person.’ ” Id. (quoting Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski, 456 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984)). The question before the court is whether SFM now alleges that BAS engaged in a conspiracy to commit th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Business & commercial cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ..., 468 So.2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), petition for rev. denied , 479 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1985). 5. Blatt v. Green, Rose, Kahn & Piotrkowski , 456 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). 6. Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital District , 403 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), petition for rev. denied , 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT