Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena
| Decision Date | 17 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | 95-3550,Nos. 95-3551,s. 95-3551 |
| Citation | 705 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2 SURE SNAP CORPORATION and Elaine Shure, Appellants, v. Scott L. BAENA and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lydia Shure, New York City, for appellants.
Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas and Philip D. Parrish and Robert M. Klein, Miami, for appellees.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.
An attorney sued his former client for attorney's fees and the former client filed a counter-claim alleging malpractice. In this consolidated appeal, the former client appeals from that part of the jury verdict and Final Judgment that awarded no damages for her claim of malpractice, and the attorney and his law firm appeal from a Final Cost Judgment that awarded costs to the former client.
This case involves Sure Snap Corporation, a once successful company engaged in the manufacture of snap fasteners used in the apparel industry, most commonly featured on blue jeans. Alfred Shure was the president of Sure Snap Corporation and was married to Mrs. Elaine Shure. Sure Snap's operations were based primarily in Miami and New York. In 1984 Alfred Shure began the negotiations necessary to move his plant to Vermont. He contracted with State Street Bank and Trust Company which extended a line of credit to Sure Snap Corporation in the amount of $1.25 million for its Vermont operations. According to Mrs. Shure, State Street Bank arbitrarily reduced the line of credit to $450,000, which, in turn, had a crippling effect on the manufacturing operations of Sure Snap.
On March 1, 1987, Alfred Shure died suddenly of a heart attack and Mrs. Shure became the new president of Sure Snap Corporation. Within several days, State Street froze all Sure Snap accounts. According to Mrs. Shure, improper actions by State Street Bank forced Sure Snap Corporation into bankruptcy.
Sure Snap Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March of 1987. While the bankruptcy proceedings were pending, Mrs. Shure met with attorney Scott L. Baena ("Baena") and the law firm in which he was a partner, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (the "law firm"), for the purposes of initiating a lawsuit against State Street Bank. The law firm agreed to represent Mrs. Shure on a contingency basis, and to assert, on her behalf, a cause of action for "lender liability" against the bank. The law firm, however, alleges that it entered into the contingency agreement as a result of Mrs. Shure's failure to disclose key facts, which undermined the strength of her lender liability claim, during her meetings with Baena.
Sure Snap was confirmed out of bankruptcy in 1988. Ten months later, the law firm filed a complaint against State Street Bank alleging lender liability in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case was moved to a United States District Court in Vermont. The action was dismissed in 1988 by the court in Vermont on the grounds that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court reasoned that Mrs. Shure failed to preserve her claim against the bank during the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, and any right to bring such a claim was thereby waived. On appeal, the Second Circuit adopted the reasoning of the District Court and affirmed its ruling.
The law firm assigned its rights to fees to Baena and Baena sued both Mrs. Shure and Sure Snap Corporation for attorney's fees. Mrs. Shure and Sure Snap filed a counterclaim against Baena for malpractice. Mrs. Shure and Sure Snap also filed a third party Complaint against the law firm for malpractice. The alleged basis for the malpractice claims was that Baena and the law firm failed to timely preserve their former client's right to a claim of lender liability in the bankruptcy court and, as a consequence, the claim for lender liability was barred by res judicata.
At trial, Mrs. Shure presented expert testimony that the lender liability claim which was precluded by the law firm's alleged malpractice would have been worth $2.6 million in damages. The jury found that Baena and the law firm were at fault in failing to preserve the lender liability claims. However, the jury also determined that Mrs. Shure and Sure Snap Corporation suffered no damage as a result of the actions of Baena and the law firm. Specifically, the jury's verdict form reflects that Elaine Shure and Sure Snap Corporation's underlying claims against State Street Bank would not have been successful. Consequently, the jury awarded no damages to Mrs. Shure and Sure Snap on their claims for malpractice. The trial court entered Final Judgments as follows: (1) a Final Judgment was entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton
...proof that the attorney's negligence proximately caused the client's harm is necessary for recovery. See Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla.App.1997). Recently, in Porter, III v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.2001), the Eleventh Circuit case examined the law of......
-
Herendeen v. Mandelbaum
...is necessary for recovery." Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton, 223 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (citing Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ). "For a party to recover for legal malpractice, three elements must be proven: (1) the attorney was employed by o......
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton
...proof that the attorney's negligence proximately caused the client's harm is necessary for recovery. See Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla.App.3d Dist.Ct.App. 1997). Recently, in Porter, III v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2001), the Eleventh Circuit examine......
-
Olmsted v. Emmanuel
...that there is an amount of damages which [he] would have recovered but for the attorney's negligence." Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So.2d 46, 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Thus, in a case such as this, the plaintiff has to prove that he "would have prevailed on the underlying action but for the a......
-
Negligence cases
...736 So.2d 138, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). 4. Atkin v. Tittle & Tittle , 730 So.2d 376, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). 5. Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena , 705 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), rev. denied , 719 So.2d 288 (Fla. 1998). 6. Riccio v. Stein , 559 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. dismisse......
-
1-5 Third Predicate: Attorney's Negligence as Proximate Cause of Loss
...to obtain substitute counsel prior to loss on summary judgment in medical malpractice proceeding). See also Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997), review denied, 719 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1998).[234] Lefebvre v. James, 697 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App.), rev......
-
9-1 Introduction
...awarded unless specifically requested. Bluth v. Blake, 128 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2013). See also Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997), review denied, 719 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1998) (client not entitled to "prevailing party costs" where no damages a......