RAY-MAR BEAUTY COLLEGE, INC., MARILYN E. JOHNSON AND RAYMER J. JOHNSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELLIS RUBIN LAW OFFICES, P.A., AND ELLIS S. RUBIN, APPELLEES
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.
The court reversed a legal malpractice judgment against the defendant law firm and remanded for partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, with a new trial limited to damages only, because the record showed undisputed gross malpractice by the defendant attorney.
Where an attorney's gross malpractice is established without material dispute, partial summary judgment on liability must be entered, with damages remaining for jury determination.
[1] Where an attorney's conduct constitutes gross malpractice established without material dispute in the record, partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is approp…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay-Mar Beauty College and the Johnsons sued their former attorney Ellis Rubin for legal malpractice arising from his representation in a prior lawsui…
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 Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review entered upon an adverse jury verdict in a legal malpractice action is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to (1) enter a partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs Ray-Mar Beauty College, Inc., Marilyn E. Johnson and Raymer J. Johnson on the issue of liability in this action and (2) order a new trial solely as to damages in the same action. We reach this result based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, it appears without material dispute in this record that the defendants Ellis Rubin Law Offices, P.A. and Ellis Rubin, as counsel for the plaintiff herein in a prior lawsuit, committed acts of gross malpractice proximately causing legal damage to the said plaintiffs, which showing necessitated the entry of a partial summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs herein. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(a), (c); compare Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Second, the trial court was, therefore, in error in denying the plaintiffs’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment herein because the motion should have been granted, in part, as to liability. Third, there are material issues of fact on this record as to the amount of damage, if any, sustained by the plaintiffs herein as a result of the aforesaid acts of malpractice, which issues should be submitted to a jury upon remand.
Reversed and remanded.
ON MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs Ray-Mar Beauty College, Inc., Marilyn E. Johnson and Raymer J. Johnson have filed a motion for clarification in which they point out that we inadvertently failed to address the punitive damages issue in this case. We agree, grant the motion for clarification, and conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in directing a verdict for the defendants herein on the punitive damages claim. On this record, ample evidence was presented below to sustain the punitive damages claim herein. See White Construction Co. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026, 1028-29 (Fla.1984). On remand, therefore, the trial court shall order a new trial as to all claims for damages in this cause, including the punitive damages claim herein. We find no merit, however, in the defendant’s motion for rehearing and said motion is therefore denied.
Clarification granted; rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ioannides v. Romagosa, 93 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…court’s denial of pre-trial motion for summary judgment because plaintiff established she was entitled to relief as a matter of law), overruled on other grounds, 373 So. 2d 916 (Fla.1979); Ray-Mar Beauty Coll., Inc. v. Ellis Rubin Law Offices, P.A., 475 So. 2d 718, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same); Give Kids the World, Inc. v. [*434] Sanislo, — So. 3d —, 2012 WL 1645607 (Fla. 5th 2012) (same). Sunrise Lakes found support for its holding in a decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals, Certain Underwriters at Lloy…
Authorities Cited
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)
- Irwin J. Weiner and Mark R. Rubin v. Nelia Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)