Meadows v. ENGLISH, McCAUGHAN & O'BRYAN
| Decision Date | 03 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D04-1212, No. 4D04-2456. |
| Citation | 909 So.2d 926 |
| Parties | Linda MEADOWS, Appellant, v. ENGLISH, McCAUGHAN & O'BRYAN, P.A. and Gerald W. Gritter, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ladd H. Fassett, and Robert W. Anthony of Fassett, Anthony & Taylor, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Marjorie Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens and William Zei of Peterson Bernard Attorneys at Law, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
The plaintiff appeals a final judgment entered after a jury verdict on claims against a lawyer and his law firm for breach of fiduciary duty as an escrow and closing agent. The lawyer and his law firm cross-appeal. The issues concern both liability and the proper measure of damages. We affirm in the appeal and cross-appeal.
The litigation arose from a failed stock transaction. The plaintiff was persuaded by her brother to purchase stock in a corporate client represented by the law firm. She wired $35,000 into the law firm's trust account and faxed a letter to the attorney confirming she had wired the money for purposes of the stock purchase. The attorney admitted receiving the funds, the faxed letter, and to being aware the funds were for the purchase of stock. Neither the lawyer nor his law firm entered into any formal agreement to serve as escrow or closing agent in the stock transaction.
Pursuant to instructions from the principal of the corporate client, the law firm disbursed the funds to a separate company owned by the principal of the corporate client.1 Neither the lawyer nor the law firm took any further action to secure the stock for the plaintiff. Needless to say, the plaintiff did not promptly receive the stock. When the stock was finally issued, it was worthless.
The plaintiff sued the attorney and his law firm for breach of their duties as escrow and closing agents. The plaintiff sought damages in the form of the potential value of the stock. Much of the trial time was spent on expert testimony concerning the trading potential of the stock, whether it was restricted or unrestricted, its loan value, and its potential investment value.
Prior to trial, the lawyer and his law firm moved to limit the plaintiff's expert testimony concerning damages because it raised "entirely new issues of damages" and was "pure speculation." The trial court denied the motion, agreeing to reconsider the damages issue during trial. When the defense moved for directed verdict on liability and damages, the trial court denied the motion with regard to liability, but limited the plaintiff's damages to the $35,000 transferred to the law firm for purchase of the stock.
The jury found the lawyer and his law firm liable for breach of their duties as both the closing and escrow agents. Pursuant to its prior ruling, the trial court limited damages and entered a final judgment in the amount of $35,000, plus interest of $12,605.75, for a total award of $47,605.75.
The plaintiff argues the trial court erred in limiting damages to out-of-pocket expenses and suggests she was entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Understanding and applying Florida's flexibility theory of damages.
...they are "alternate, and mutually exclusive, remedies." (15) Another recent example is Meadows v. English, McCaughan & O'Bryan P.A., 909 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), citing Totale with approval--but failing again to use the actual term "flexibility * Maryland Adopted the Flexibility ......
-
"For want of a nail": applying Florida's reasonable certainty test to lost profit damage claims.
...or actual value of the property." Totale, 877 So. 2d at 815. (36) Id. (37) See also Meadows v. English, McCaughan & O'Bryan, P.A., 909 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005), stating in a tort case that lost profit benefit-of-the-bargain damages may properly be considered when the evide......
-
9-2 Compensatory Damages
...Dyadic Int'l, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2015 WL 5005081 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 2015).[6] Meadows v. English, McCaughan & OBryan, P.A., 909 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2005).[7] Meadows v. English, McCaughan & OBryan, P.A., 909 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2005).[8] Meadow......