RUTH I. DRAWDY, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT P. SAPP, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ruth Drawdy appealed the dismissal of her legal malpractice complaint against Herbert Sapp, Jr., her husband's divorce attorney who allegedly negligently prepared a deed. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that an attorney owes no duty of care to a non-client, even when both parties in a transaction are represented by separate counsel.
The court held that an attorney generally owes a duty of care only to his or her client and that where both parties are represented by separate counsel, an attorney is not liable for negligence to the party he did not represent. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the complaint failed to allege facts showing that Sapp owed Drawdy a legal duty.
[1] A plaintiff generally must prove attorney employment, neglect of a reasonable duty, and that such negligence caused loss to the client to establish a claim for legal malp…
[2] An attorney owes a duty of care to their client, and generally not to non-clients.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally in a suit against an attorney for negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the attorney's employment; (2) his neglect of a reasonable duty; and (3) that such negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.”
Establishes the three-element test required to establish legal malpractice
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSapp represented Drawdy's husband in divorce proceedings and prepared a deed conveying property from the husband to Drawdy. The deed allegedly contain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint against appellee for legal malpractice. The complaint alleged that appel-lee, representing appellant’s husband in divorce proceedings, negligently prepared a deed conveying certain property from the husband to appellant and that subsequently she incurred damages when she was unable to sell the property to willing purchasers at a favorable price because of the defect in title caused by that negligence. The record revealed that appellant had been represented by her own counsel in the divorce proceedings. Appellee’s motion to dismiss urged that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it failed to allege facts giving rise to a legal duty owed appellant by appellee in that he was not her attorney. After a hearing the trial court agreed.
We affirm. Generally in a suit against an attorney for negligence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the attorney’s employment; (2) his neglect of a reasonable duty; and (3) that such negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Price, 231 F. 397 (4th Cir. 1916), as adopted in Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
There is a limited exception to this general rule in will-drafting cases, see Annotation, “Attorney’s liability to one other than his immediate client for consequences of negligence in carrying out legal duties,” 45 A.L.R.3d 1181 (1972); and the Fourth District Court of Appeal adopted the exception in McAbee v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Subsequently, however, the Fourth District Court of Appeal declined to further extend the liability of an attorney to a nonclient in Adams v. Chenowith, 349 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
We know of no authority, nor was any cited, holding that where both parties are represented by counsel, an error by the lawyer not representing the allegedly injured party will render him liable to that party.
Accordingly, there being no error in the dismissal of appellant’s complaint, the order is AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Angel v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1987)…ngel, Cohen and Rogovin, 492 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), because of direct and express conflict with Amey, Inc. v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 367 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied 376 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1979) and Drawdy v. Sapp, 365 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. This case deals with the actions of petitioner in its representation of one Leonard Treister. Respondent brought suit against Treister alleging that, while acting as attorney and agent for respond…
-
Olive Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, P.A., 467 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…t prove: (1) the attorney’s employment by the plaintiff (privity);3 (2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty owed to the plaintiff; and (3) that such negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff. Drawdy v. Sapp, 365 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Florida courts have recognized, however, that an attorney preparing a will has a duty not only to the testator-client, but also to the testator’s intended beneficiaries. In li…
-
Hatcher v. B.K. Roberts, 478 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…nt since the issue is controlled by Florida law. A legal malpractice cause of action has three elements: (1) The attorney’s employment and (2) his neglect of a reasonable duty, which (3) is the proximate cause of loss to the client. Drawdy v. Sapp, 365 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). There is no dispute as to Miller’s employment by Red Carpet, so the first element has been satisfied. With respect to the second element, neglect of a reasonable duty, this is ordinarily a factual issue upon which reasonable per…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Irwin J. Weiner and Mark R. Rubin v. Nelia Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Jacquelyn Yon McABEE v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Adams v. Reuben J. Chenowith, 349 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)