ELIGIO BARRIOS AND GOLDSTONE COMPANY, N.V., APPELLANTS,
v.
ALFREDO DURAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cross Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal we are called upon to review the propriety of a final summary judgment disposing of a counter-claim and cross-claim. We reverse.
There was a disputed issue of fact as to the alleged attorney-client relationship between the appellants and the appel-lee. De Los Salmones v. Stolar, 357 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There is also an issue of fact as to the intention of the parties in the execution of an agreement to which the appellee is not a party. Milford v. Metropolitan Dade County, 430 So. 2d 951 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Letiziano v. Lytal, 427 So. 2d 321, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Consolo v. A.M.K. Corporation, 344 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The issue of fraud generally should not be disposed of by summary judgment. Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hermes v. Anton, 300 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Therefore for the reasons stated, the final summary judgment adverse to the appellants on the cross-claim and the counterclaim be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Peat v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1990)…Marwick might have been negligent; however, if the tax court did not uphold the deficiency, the Lanes would not have a cause of action against Peat Marwick for accounting malpractice. 540 So. 2d at 924 (citations omitted) (quoting Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987)). The question to be resolved is whether the commencement of the limitations period in an accounting malpractice action relating to income tax preparation occurs with the receipt of…1 / 2
-
Bierman v. Miller, 639 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…deral suit are decided, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. No cause of action for legal malpractice “should be deemed to have accrued until the existence of redressa-ble harm has been established.” Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987). See also Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla.1990) (cause of action for legal malpractice does not accrue until actionable error by attorney determined),…
-
Abdolhossain Haghayegh and Gholamossain Haghayegh v. Clark, 520 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…CA 1981). It has also held that in circumstances such as those disclosed by this record, until there was a final determination by the appellate court that the appellant’s option had expired the statute had not commenced to run. See Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Chapman By and Through Chapman v. Garcia, 463 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Therefore for the reasons stated, the summary judgment for the defendants be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is returned to the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Salomon Kassin Nessim v. Mickey DeLOACHE, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Burton Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hermes v. Anton, 300 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Milford v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 430 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Consolo v. A.M.K. Corp., 344 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Salmones v. Stolar, 357 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Ernie Letiziano v. Lake Lytal, Jr., 427 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)