THOMAS LEE DAVENPORT, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS E. STONE, 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.
Davenport appealed a dismissal of his legal malpractice counterclaim against his attorney Stone, claiming the attorney negligently handled his divorce settlement agreement. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Davenport suffered no loss because he was fully advised by competent counsel and voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement with full awareness.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the malpractice counterclaim because Davenport suffered no loss or damages. Since the prior court determined that Davenport was fully advised by competent counsel at all stages, he cannot establish the element of proximate causation and resulting loss required for a malpractice action.
[1] A legal malpractice action requires proof that the attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff.
[2] A party who actively participated in negotiating and confirmed a settlement agreement, while represented by competent counsel, cannot claim loss resulting from that agree…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The Husband is intelligent and educated (having a Ph.D), and was represented and fully advised at all stages by competent counsel of his choice.”
Key finding from the prior divorce proceeding establishing Davenport received competent representation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavenport sought to set aside a Property Settlement Agreement in a prior divorce case (Davenport v. Davenport). When the divorce court rejected his at…
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 Attorney'S Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from adverse trial court rulings in his legal malpractice action, appellant Thomas Lee Davenport seeks review of Judgment on Counterclaim,1 Final Judgment on Second Amended Counterclaim, and miscellaneous orders. We affirm for reasons other than those stated by the trial court. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
In the Final Judgment on Second Amended Counterclaim, the trial court declared Davenport’s counterclaim “dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of collateral estoppel by virtue of the ‘Order Conferring [sic] Property Settlement Agreement’ entered in the case of Davenport v. Davenport, Case no. 83-8974 FC 27 in the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida.” In Davenport v. Davenport, the trial court rejected Davenport’s attempts to set aside his Property Settlement Agreement. In the case before us, Davenport then sought to place the blame for his failure to prevail on his attorney by seeking malpractice damages to recover for his “loss.” However, the Davenport v. Davenport judge recited significant findings of fact:
A. The Husband is intelligent and educated (having a Ph.D), and was represented and fully advised at all stages by competent counsel of his choice.
B. The Husband actively participated in the negotiation of the settlement agreement and was totally and fully aware and competent of his actions.
C. The Husband, on two occasions, confirmed the settlement agreement:
1. on August 24,1983 when both parties and their respective attorneys dictated their settlement to a court reporter — said transcript being made part of the record in the case; and
2. on September 13, 1983 when the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing and the Husband voluntarily executed same before a Notary and witnesses in his attorney’s office.
Those findings establish that Davenport suffered no loss and, consequently, has no cause of action. The elements of an action based on an attorney’s negligent handling of a client’s cause have been defined to include: 1) the attorney’s employment by the plaintiff (privity); 2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty owed to the plaintiff; and 3) proof that such negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff. Arnold v. Carmichael, 524 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, P.A., 467 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). A trial court unequivocally determined that Davenport was “fully advised at all stages by competent counsel.” Thus, suffering no loss or damages, Davenport may not maintain a lawsuit predicated on his attorney’s incompetence.
Affirmed.
. The Final Judgment on Second Amended Counterclaim orders the Final Judgment on Counterclaim stricken.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sure Snap Corp. & Elaine Shure v. Baena, 705 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…o the client is not satisfied unless the plaintiff demonstrates that there is an amount of damages which the client would have recovered but for the attorney’s negligence. See Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Davenport v. Stone, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kay v. Bricker, 485 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, even though the jury found that Baena and the law firm were at fault for failing to preserve the underlying claims, they are not legally and/or financially liable t…
-
Shayan Keramati v. Schackow, 553 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…act or conduct, willfully caused another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on this belief injuriously to himself, or to alter his own previous condition to his injury. . Cf. Davenport v. Stone, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). . See Chapman By and Through Chapman v. Garcia, 463 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). . See Daytona Development Corp. v. McFarland, 505 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Dillard Smith Construction Co. v. Greene, 337 So. 2d 841 (Fla.…
-
Nolan P. Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…in a legal malpractice/breach of contract case. We affirm. A party cannot recover damages for legal malpractice unless it is shown that the lawyer neglected a reasonable duty which was the proximate cause of the client’s loss. Davenport v. Store, 528 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In breach of contract actions, a plaintiff may recover only if the damages were a proximate result of the breach. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Chipman alleged in h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Olive Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, P.A., 467 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Arnold v. Carmichael, 524 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)