INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR YOUNG, ET AL., 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 held that the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action against the attorney for participation in a breach of trust, and summary judgment on that claim was improper.
An attorney prepared documents for a corporate officer to encumber and convey corporate property to a trust benefiting the officer. The corporation su…
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 Slander Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Appellee, an attorney for appellant corporation, at the request of a corporate officer, prepared promissory notes, mortgages, deeds, and bills of sale for execution by the corporate officer encumbering and conveying corporate property to a trust of which the corporate officer was the sole beneficiary. The corporation sued the corporate officer and the corporate attorney for damages for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and slander of title. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the attorney.
The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action against the corporate attorney for damages resulting from participation in a breach of trust1 by the corporate officer. Whether or not the corporate attorney knew, or should have known, that he was assisting in a breach of trust by the corporate officer is a question of fact to be resolved by a fact finder and not by summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. The summary judgment as to the cause of action for participation in a breach of trust2 is reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 326 (1959), G. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees, § 901, et seq., (rev. 2d ed. 1982), and the cases collected; IV A.W. Scott, The Law of Trusts, § 326.4 (1967), and Centrust Savings Bank v. Barnett Banks Trust Company, 483 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
. As to the claims of negligence and slander of title, the summary judgment is affirmed. Those claims appear to be but alternative theories for the recovery of the same damages sought in the count for participation in a breach of trust.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan v. Morgan, 350 So. 3d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…sultant, Inc. Money Purchase Plan & Tr. v. Abbott, 561 F. App'x 882, 884–86 (11th Cir. 2014) (applying Florida law and reversing grant of motion to dismiss to allow aiding and abetting claim against attorneys to proceed); Int'l Cmty. Corp. v. Young, 486 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (reversing summary judgment in favor of corporate attorney and concluding that whether attorney knowingly assisted officer's breach of trust was a fact issue to be decided by a jury). We therefore conclude that the complaint…
-
Carr Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Fence Masters, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…seller, purchaser had to allege and prove actual or constructive knowledge of the intended use of the abstract), the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against Smith on the issue of liability. Cf. International Community Corp. v. Young, 486 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“Whether or not the corporate attorney knew, or should have known, that he was assisting in breach of trust by the corporate officer is a question of fact to be resolved by a fact finder and not by summary judgment under Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Centrust Sav. Bank v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A., 483 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)