EMIL F. DANCIU, ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES,
v.
BENNETT COHN, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Dissolution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
dissenting.
This cause of action for legal malpractice was resolved in the trial court by summary judgment in favor of the defendant lawyers. One of the issues of fact, that I believe precludes such a determination, is whether the attorneys were negligent in permitting their client's corporate existence to lapse (for failure to file annual reports) during the progress of the underlying litigation. I agree with the trial judge that under normal circumstances corporate officers, rather than corporate attorneys, should bear the responsibility of maintaining a corporation as a corporate entity. In the case at bar, however, during the progress of the underlying litigation which gave rise to the malpractice, the attorneys actually undertook to address this very problem on behalf of their corporate client, in a pleading filed to demonstrate compliance with the statute. Having shouldered that burden, I find it unacceptable that the lawyers can now successfully obtain a summary judgment predicated on the inability of their client to pursue the malpractice claim in court because of failure to file the necessary annual reports under section 607.357(6), Florida Statutes (1985).
As a consequence, the erstwhile corporate client, by reason of this affirmance, is on the receiving end of a classic Catch 22. The corporation’s lawyers represented and billed the corporation which was involuntarily dissolved during the progress of the litigation for which the lawyers were employed. Upon suit against its legal counsel for malpractice, said legal counsel successfully defended themselves by taking advantage of their client’s lack of standing in court. This lack of standing arises because the client is no longer a corporation; a defect, which it alleges, came about through the negligence of that very same counsel. I dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987)…GRIMES, Justice. We have for review the case of Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), because of its apparent conflict with Robert & Co. Associates v. Zabawczuk, 200 So. 2d 802 (Fla.1967). Jurisdiction is predicated upon article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Respondent Stone filed a worker’s compensa…
-
What AN Idea, Inc. v. Sitko, 505 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ents under which the nature and purposes of the statutes governing claimant’s attorney’s fees underwent drastic revision. See, e.g., Florida Erection Services v. McDonald, 395 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (en banc decision). Upon close examination, it will also be seen that the language of Lee Engineering & Construction Company v. Fellows, 209 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1968) (cited in Rollins, 390 So. 2d at 95), which is critical of conting…
-
Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…987), wherein it approved the decision of this Court that the award of attorney’s fees should include the time spent by the claimant’s attorney in preparing for and prosecuting the claim for attorney’s fees. Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The significance of this approval, and the reason why it is not controlling, is that the supreme court agreed with this Court’s view “that because the present workers’ compensation law places primary responsibility for the claim…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence