BILLIE TARNOVE MORRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT REED, 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.
A lawyer sued for malpractice cannot pursue indemnification, contribution, or equitable subrogation against a third-party beneficiary who benefited from the alleged negligence.
A lawyer defendant in a malpractice action cannot maintain a third-party claim for indemnification, contribution, or equitable subrogation against a beneficiary who benefited from the alleged negligence.
[1] A lawyer defendant in a malpractice action may not seek indemnification, contribution, or equitable subrogation from a third-party beneficiary who benefited from the alle…
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 intelligenceA lawyer was sued for malpractice for negligently failing to contest and revoke a will and trust executed by her client's mother, resulting in the cli…
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 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant is a lawyer who was sued for legal malpractice for her alleged negligence in failing effectively to contest and revoke a will and trust executed by the client’s mother with the result that the appellee Reed, the testatrix’s son, who was a beneficiary of those instruments, secured assets which would have otherwise gone to his sister. The lawyer then filed a third-party complaint against Reed, claiming that if she were held liable for malpractice in the primary action, Reed, who would thus have been permitted to retain the “benefits” of that negligence, should wholly or partially reimburse her under theories either of indemnification, contribution or some variant of “equitable subrogation.” 1 We agree with the trial court which, in dismissing the third-party complaint with prejudice, ruled that no such claim is cognizable under the law. Mitchell v. Valerio, 858 P. 2d 822 (Idaho App.1993); Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake, 311 N.W. 2d 3 (Minn. 1981); Annot., Legal Malpractice: Defendant’s Right to Contribution or Indemnity From Original Tortfeasor, 20 A.L.R.4th 338 (1983).
Affirmed.
. It is unclear, at best, what she is to be subro-gated to, or why she would be entitled to recover against Reed for whatever that may be.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bigler v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Bath & Body Works, Inc., 841 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…Castillo v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Savage v. Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208, 1208-09 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order and remand with instructions that there was no disqualifying conduct and that the appellant i…
-
Tanav v. DHL & The Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…Commission affirmed. As a matter of law, however, these actions do not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So…