JOSEPH B. POMERANCE AND MILDRED F. POMERANCE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
K. LAWRENCE GRAGG, 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.
The court affirmed dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint against an attorney, finding that some allegations failed to state a cause of action and others were barred by the statute of limitations.
A legal malpractice complaint against an attorney for alleged mishandling of an option to purchase clause in a lease contract was properly dismissed because some allegations failed to state a cause of action and others were time-barred.
[1] Some allegations of legal malpractice may fail to state a cause of action even if others survive initial pleading scrutiny, and time-barred claims are subject to dismissa…
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 intelligenceJoseph and Mildred Pomerance sued their former attorney K. Lawrence Gragg for legal malpractice in connection with his representation regarding an opt…
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Joseph and Mildred Pomerance from a final order dismissing their amended complaint sounding in legal malpractice, as further amended by plaintiffs’ more definite statement. The plaintiffs assert a series of acts of alleged legal malpractice in connection with the defendant K. Lawrence Gragg’s representation of them concerning an option to purchase clause of a lease contract. Without undertaking a detailed analysis of the asserted acts of legal malpractice herein, suffice it to say that some of these allegations fail to state a cause of action for legal malpractice and the balance are, on the face of the complaint, barred by the statute of limitations.
Moreover, there is no merit to the claimed due process violation below, as the plaintiffs clearly had an opportunity to be heard on their motion to dismiss. We have not overlooked the plaintiffs’ extensive arguments to the contrary, but find them unpersuasive. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-79, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786-87, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Rishel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Peacock v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So. 2d 142, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Howard v. Minnesota Muskies, Inc., 420 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1983); Zeccola v. Ezzo, 370 So. 2d 38, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 771 (Fla.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 924, 100 S.Ct. 3016, 65 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1980). The final order of dismissal under review is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1971)
- Gardner Bender, Inc. v. Ideal Indus., Inc., 447 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1980)
- Electri-Flex Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 447 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1980)
- Rishel v. E. Airlines, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Peacock v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Zeccola v. Ezzo, 370 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Knapp v. State, 370 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Ramos v. State, 420 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)