LEONARD E. GREENBERG AND ARNOLD C. GREENBERG, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAHONEY ADAMS & CRISER, P.A., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a professional malpractice suit against attorneys, holding that third parties may bring legal malpractice claims if they were intended beneficiaries of the attorney-client relationship, not just in will-drafting cases as the trial court had narrowly interpreted.
Third parties may bring legal malpractice suits despite the absence of privity where it was the apparent intent of the client to benefit the third party. The intended third party beneficiary exception to the privity rule is not limited to will-drafting cases, though that is the most obvious example.
[1] A party must ordinarily share privity of contract with an attorney to bring a legal malpractice suit.
[2] The privity requirement for legal malpractice actions is relaxed where it was the apparent intent of the client to benefit a third party.
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“While ordinarily a party must share privity of contract with an attorney before he may bring suit for legal malpractice, the rule of privity is relaxed in Florida and a third party may bring suit despite the absence of privity where it was the apparent intent of the client to benefit the third party.”
Establishes the foundational legal standard allowing third-party malpractice claims based on intended beneficiary status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Leonard E. Greenberg and Arnold C. Greenberg brought a professional malpractice suit against the law firm Mahoney Adams & Criser, P.A. The …
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 Professional Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellants appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their professional malpractice suit against appellees. The trial court’s order is based solely on the ground that appellants lacked privity with appel-lees and could not bring a legal malpractice action in that they did not come within the testamentary exception to the privity requirement. While ordinarily a party must share privity of contract with an attorney before he may bring suit for legal malpractice, the rule of privity is relaxed in Florida and a third party may bring suit despite the absence of privity where it was the apparent intent of the client to benefit the third party. Angel, Cohen & Rogovin v. Oberon Investment, N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1987). Appellants pled in their complaint that they were intended third party beneficiaries. The Oberon court recognized that the most obvious example of the third party intended beneficiary exception to the privity rule is in the area of will drafting; however, the court did not limit the exception to will drafting cases. The trial court’s order indicates consideration of the sufficiency of this complaint based solely upon whether it came within the “testamentary exception” to the privity requirement, and this was the stated basis for the trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. We conclude that this error requires reversal, and in so doing, we decline to consider whether there are other factual and legal arguments which, if they had been considered by the trial court, might also have justified dismissal. In other words, we invoke the rule that these issues must be first considered and decided by the trial court. See, Wolfe v. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida, 539 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and cases therein cited.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents with written opinion.
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm based on Angel, Cohen & Rogovin v. Oberon Investment, N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1987), which I read, as did the trial court, to state a very limited exception to the privity requirement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rushing v. Bosse, 652 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…e Angel, Cohen and Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192, 193-94 (Fla.1987). We do not read Oberon as creating an exception to the privity requirement limited solely to the area of will drafting. See Greenberg v. Mahoney Adams & Criser, P.A., 614 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), review denied, 624 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1993). Although privity of contract may create a duty of care providing the basis for recovery in negligence, lack of privity does not necessarily foreclose liability if a duty of care is other…
-
Dingle v. Dellinger, 134 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…of privity is not limited to will drafting cases.” Hodge v. Cichon, 78 So. 3d 719, 722 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 99 So. 3d 942 (Fla.2012); Winston v. Brogan, 844 F.Supp. 753, 756 (S.D.Fla.1994) (citing Greenberg v. Mahoney Adams & Criser, P.A., 614 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). Although privity of contract may create a duty of care providing the basis for recovery in negligence, the lack of privity does not necessarily foreclose liability if a duty of care is otherwise established. See Baskervill…
-
Kinney v. Shinholser, 663 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (the rule of privity in legal malpractice actions is relaxed when the plaintiff is the intended third party beneficiary of the contract between the client and the attorney); Greenberg v. Mahoney, Adams & Criser, P.A., 614 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 624 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1993) (third party who is intended beneficiary has standing to sue for legal malpractice where it is the apparent intent of the client to benefit the third party). In addition, appellant was a third…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Angel v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1987)
- Wolfe v. Am. Sav. & Loan Assoc. OF Fla., 539 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)