Carson v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 25 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-03961,92-03961 |
| Citation | 638 So.2d 79 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D450 William CARSON, Appellant, v. Robin GIBSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack F. Durie, Jr., Orlando, and Russell S. Bohn, Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Hannah and Michael C. Tyson, Hannah, Marsee & Voght, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
William Carson appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Robin Gibson. In an earlier appeal, we reversed a similar summary judgment because the trial court improperly relied on documents from another record. Carson v. Gibson, 595 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). On remand, the relevant materials were properly added to the record and the trial court again entered a summary judgment. We affirm the judgment because the issues that Mr. Carson raises in his malpractice complaint are issues that he previously raised and lost as affirmative defenses in a dispute over a charging lien.
Carson retained Gibson to represent him in a lawsuit against John Petersen and Petersen Industries. He sued Petersen for damages based upon invention royalties and management services. The case was settled during mediation for an amount in excess of $200,000. Shortly thereafter, a dispute developed between Carson and Gibson concerning Gibson's entitlement to a fee under their contingency fee agreement. Gibson filed a charging lien on November 8, 1988. Carson retained new counsel to represent him in that dispute.
The litigation concerning this charging lien was somewhat exceptional. Carson raised numerous affirmative defenses, which are described in a pretrial stipulation as contentions "in the nature of a counterclaim." These contentions included a theory that Gibson was not entitled to a fee because he coerced or compelled Carson to settle his lawsuit "without adequate counsel with respect to the merits of the action." Carson claimed that Gibson had misevaluated the claim and described these matters as breaches of fiduciary duties.
The evidentiary hearing on the charging lien was not a summary proceeding. It lasted several days and resulted in a twelve-volume transcript. Carson presented extensive testimony concerning the value of his claim against Petersen and his belief that Gibson had breached a fiduciary duty to him by misunderstanding or misrepresenting the value of his case.
Carson did not present any expert testimony from an attorney during his case. However, his attorney explained in closing argument that an attorney's fiduciary duty to a client can be the basis of a "malpractice claim" and that such a fiduciary duty, in his opinion, did not involve a professional standard of care. Accordingly, he believed that the alleged breach of fiduciary duty could be established without testimony from a legal expert.
The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Gibson in the charging lien dispute. That judgment states: "The record does not support a finding of malpractice or unethical conduct on the part of Robin Gibson." Carson appealed that judgment to this court. Among the issues raised on appeal was the propriety of this finding in the context of a charging lien dispute. Carson argued that it was an unnecessary finding, whereas Gibson argued that the issue had been raised by Carson's affirmative defenses. This court affirmed the trial court without a written opinion. Carson v. Petersen, 566 So.2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for writ of mandamus denied, 569 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1990).
A few days after this court's per curiam opinion in Petersen, Carson filed this action against Gibson. The complaint alleges malpractice, but raises the same factual issues and legal concerns that Carson had raised as affirmative defenses in the charging lien action. The trial court held that the nonjury trial on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County
...action or whether appellant has had its day in court must be resolved in favor of appellant...." 637 So.2d at 324.4 Carson v. Gibson, 638 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 645 So.2d 451 (1994) is one example of how Florida courts apply the "identity of issue" principle of collateral esto......
-
Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
...parties wish to relitigate issues that were actually litigated as necessary and material issues in a prior action." Carson v. Gibson, 638 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1994) (citing Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 In this case, the district court did not adopt the state court's decision in ......
-
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County, 95-4142
...parties wish to relitigate issues that were actually litigated as necessary and material issues in a prior action." Carson v. Gibson, 638 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (citing Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 Here, NPL has failed (at the least) to satisfy the "necessary and material" el......
-
Kellogg v. FOWLER, WHITE, BURNETT, PA
...the trial in the Dade County case. The circuit court granted Fowler White's motion for summary judgment, relying on Carson v. Gibson, 638 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). This case is controlled by the Restatement (Second) of Judgments section 22 (1982), which (1) Where the defendant may interp......
-
4-2 Estoppel
...& Strickroot, P.A., 807 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002).[46] Carson v. Gibson, 638 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 645 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1994).[47] Carson v. Gibson, 638 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App.), review den......