THOMAS W. MATEY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES L. REINMAN, 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.
Appellant Thomas Matey appealed a summary judgment dismissing his third-party legal malpractice claim against attorney James Reinman in connection with an underlying judgment against Matey. The court affirmed, holding that Matey failed to plead a requisite claim for indemnification, subrogation, or contribution before asserting other claims against Reinman.
A third-party claimant must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation, or contribution before asserting any other claim against a third-party defendant. Because Matey failed to allege such a claim, the summary judgment was properly entered.
[1] A third party claimant must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation, or contribution before asserting any other claim against a third party defendant.
[2] A party cannot maintain a third party action for legal malpractice absent alleging a claim for indemnity, subrogation, or contribution.
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“a third party claimant must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution before asserting any other claim against a third party defendant”
States the foundational requirement for third-party claims that Matey failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an underlying action, Vaughn Cannon obtained a judgment against Pruitt Real Estate, Inc., James Pruitt individually, and Matey as comakers or guara…
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 Third Party Action cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Thomas W. Matey, appeals the summary judgment entered against him in his attempted third party action against appellee, attorney James L. Rein-man, for legal malpractice. We affirm.
In the underlying action, Vaughn J. Cannon had obtained a judgment against James H. Pruitt Real Estate, Inc., James H. Pruitt, individually, and appellant as comakers or guarantors of a promissory note. Pruitt Real Estate, Inc. paid the judgment in full and brought a cross-claim against appellant for contribution. Appellant then filed his third party complaint against attorney Reinman alleging that Reinman’s legal malpractice led to appellant’s potential liability on the cross-claim. The claim against Reinman was severed and stayed pending the outcome of the underlying action. The court then entered a $129,693.07 judgment against appellant on the cross-claim of Pruitt Real Estate, Inc. Appellant’s claim against appellee Rein-man was then set for trial. Prior to trial, however, the parties asked the trial judge whether appellant was entitled to proceed with a third party action against appellee Reinman since appellant had not paid any of the judgment entered against him. Citing Allied Productions Inc. v. Duesterdick, 217 Va. 763, 232 S.E. 2d 774 (Va.1977), the trial judge granted summary judgment against appellant, implicitly holding that appellant could not maintain his cause of action absent payment of the judgment. While we are inclined to believe that the trial judge’s reliance on Duesterdick was misplaced, we are not required to decide this case upon that issue. Appellant conceded in his briefs and at oral argument that he has not attempted to allege a cause of action against attorney Reinman based upon indemnity, subrogation or contribution.
In light of that concession, we decide this case on the basis of Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Florida, Inc., 544 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and affirm the summary judgment insofar as it holds that appellant has not successfully pleaded a third party claim against appellee. We held in Leggiere that a third party claimant must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution before asserting any other claim against a third party defendant. 544 So. 2d at 241. This decision and the summary judgment below should not be construed as precluding appellant from attempting to allege an independent cause of action against appellee for his alleged malpractice.
Affirmed.
LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rupp v. Philpot, 619 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…language the rule change was meant to allow a claim in addition to but not in absence of a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution. Id. at 241-242. The second district recently reaffirmed its decision in Leggiere in Matey v. Reinman, 599 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The fourth district followed suit in Dhaliwal v. Don L. Leasing Co., 600 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA1992). Because Rupp in the present case failed to allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution against Philpot Ho…
-
Kendall v. Gilmore, 915 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…llants’ amended complaint could not maintain a valid claim for contribution, indemnification or subrogation. Rupp v. Philpot, 619 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Tindall v. Travelers Indem. Co., 613 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Matey v. Reinman, 599 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Florida, Inc., 544 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Boyd v. Halstead, 817 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The facts in the Third Party Complaint and the Third Party First Amended Complaint demon…
-
THE Dental LAW Firm, P.A. v. Kincer (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…test, the public adjuster, upon voluntarily dismissing its Count 3 for common law indemnification, should have withdrawn its Count 1 for breach of intended beneficiary contract and Count 2 for professional malpractice as well. See Matey v. Reinman, 599 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“[A] third[-]party claimant must allege a claim for indemnification, subrogation or contribution before asserting any other claim against a third[-]party defendant.”); Delray Assocs. Ltd. v. Sabal Pine Condos., Inc., 402 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Leggiere v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Florida, Inc., 544 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)