BURNETT ROTH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA BROS., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this legal malpractice appeal, the court reversed a jury verdict against attorney Burnett Roth, holding that an attorney cannot be found negligent for advising a client to sign a lease when a prior declaratory judgment established that the lease fully comported with the parties' actual intent, even if the client later claims it had a different intent.
No actionable legal negligence was established. An attorney cannot be found negligent for advising a client to sign a lease that, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the parties' actual intent, particularly where a prior declaratory judgment has already determined the parties' true intent. The client cannot revive a claim regarding its intent that was rejected in prior litigation under the guise of a malpractice suit.
[1] A legal malpractice claim based on an attorney's advice to sign a lease is barred when a prior judicial determination has established that the lease provision in question…
[2] A party cannot relitigate an issue previously decided in a declaratory decree action by framing it as a legal malpractice claim against their former attorney.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“it could not possibly constitute legal malpractice for plaintiff's counsel to advise the plaintiff, as he did, to sign a lease which, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the intent of the parties to the lease, including the intent of the plaintiff”
States the core legal principle that an attorney cannot be negligent in advising a client to sign a lease that actually reflects the parties' true intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa Bros., Inc. retained attorney Burnett Roth to represent it in a lease transaction with Banner Beef Co. as co-lessees. The lease contained an ambi…
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.
This is an appeal by the defendant Burnett Roth from an adverse final judgment entered against him in a legal malpractice action after a jury trial. The central contention raised on appeal is that no actionable legal negligence was established below against the defendant and that, accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment and directed verdict in his favor. We entirely agree and reverse the final judgment under review based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
The gravamen of the plaintiff Rosa Bros., Inc.’s legal malpractice claim against the defendant Roth was that he, as plaintiff’s counsel, negligently advised the plaintiff to sign a lease agreement, in which the plaintiff and Banner Beef Co. were co-lessees, because the lease had an ambiguous option-to-purchase provision which, in fact, resulted in the plaintiff receiving a 44% interest in the leased premises upon the parties’ subsequent exercise of the option to purchase, instead of a 50% interest as the plaintiff desired. The fatal flaw in this theory of legal malpractice is that it has already been judicially determined — in a prior declaratory decree action brought to construe the ambiguous option-to-purchase provision of the subject lease — that the 44% interest in the aforesaid purchased premises which the plaintiff received fully comported with the intent of the parties to the subject lease. Rosa Bros., Inc. v. Schlossman, 373 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
This being so, it could not possibly constitute legal malpractice for plaintiff’s counsel to advise the plaintiff, as he did, to sign a lease which, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the intent of the parties to the lease, including the intent of the plaintiff. See Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
We have not overlooked the plaintiff’s insistent argument made throughout this litigation that it, in fact, intended to receive a 50% interest, not a 44% interest, in the purchased premises. The plaintiff, however, lost that argument in the prior declaratory decree action and may not revive it under the guise of a legal malpractice suit against his attorney. In other words, the plaintiff cannot now be heard to claim that its attorney was negligent in advising it to sign a lease which failed to carry out an intent which the courts have determined the plaintiff never had. The final judg ment under review is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant Burnett Roth.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riccio v. Stein, 559 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ainst Stein and Rosenfeld3 for legal malpractice and for breach of warranty that their mortgage would have a first priority. The defendants moved for, and were granted, judgment on the pleadings. The trial court, relying on Roth v. Rosa Bros., Inc., 513 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), determined that this court’s prior decision in Gold Coast, 521 So. 2d at 308, precluded the Riccios’ present claim that they allegedly intended (and the defendants allegedly promised) that the purchase money mortgage would be a f…
-
Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Kratish, 699 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Roth v. Rosa Bros., 513 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
-
KJB Vill. Prop., LLC v. Craig M. Dorne, P.A., 77 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…. This can be done by showing that a court in a related proceeding construed a purportedly deficient agreement in the client’s favor (thus obviating any potential claim of harm from the attorney’s work on the agreement). See Roth v. Rosa Bros. Inc., 513 So. 2d 709, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[I]t could not possibly constitute legal malpractice for plaintiffs counsel to advise the plaintiff, as he did, to sign a lease which, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the intent of the parties to the lease, i…
Authorities Cited
- Irwin J. Weiner and Mark R. Rubin v. Nelia Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Rosa Bros., Inc. v. Schlossman, 373 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)