YOLANDA RAMSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM S. JONASSEN, ESQUIRE, 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.
Yolanda Ramsey sued her attorney William Jonassen for malpractice after a creditor levied on stock that Jonassen had transferred to her and her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the malpractice cause of action did not accrue until completion of appellate review of the underlying proceeding.
The court held that a legal malpractice cause of action does not accrue until the appellate court has completed its review of the underlying proceeding. Because Ramsey's malpractice claim was brought within two years of this court's affirmance establishing the harm, the claim was timely under the statute of limitations.
[1] A cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the appellate court completes its review of the underlying legal proceeding, as the existence of actionable error is…
[2] The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice claim begins to run after appellate review, when the harm resulting from the attorney's alleged error is conclusively e…
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 cause of action for legal malpractice does not accrue until the appellate court has completed its review of the underlying legal proceeding because, until that time, the existence of actionable error by the attorney has not been definitively established.”
Establishes the fundamental rule governing when malpractice claims accrue in cases involving appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamsey hired Jonassen to transfer stock held individually to herself and her husband as tenants by the entireties. A creditor with an individual judgm…
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 Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Yolanda Ramsey challenges the trial court’s order granting attorney William S. Jonassen’s motion for summary judgment. We find that the trial court incorrectly applied the statute of limitations for malpractice actions. Accordingly, we reverse.
Ramsey hired Jonassen to transfer stock held by Ramsey individually to her and her husband as tenants by the entireties. Subsequently, one of Ramsey’s creditors began collection proceedings against her on a previously obtained individual judgment. Following proceedings supplementary, the creditor sought to levy upon the subject stock. Ramsey attempted to prevent the sale but the trial court determined that the stock was held by appellant and her husband as joint tenants, and that Ramsey’s share was subject to levy to satisfy the creditor’s judgment against her.
The trial court’s ruling was per curiam affirmed by this court. Ramsey v. Hawley, 641 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Following this court’s affirmance, Ramsey sued Jonassen for malpractice. Jonassen moved for summary judgment alleging that Ramsey had failed to file suit within the two year statute of limitations period.
The trial court granted Jonassen’s motion and entered final summary judgment against Ramsey.
A cause of action for legal malpractice does not accrue until the appellate court has completed its review of the underlying legal proceeding because, until that time, the existence of actionable error by the attorney has not been definitively established. See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla.1990); Zuckerman v. Ruden, Barnett, McCloskey, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 670 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. denied, 679 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1996); Segall v. Segall, 632 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Drake v. Simons, 583 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 592 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1991); Zakak v. Broida & Napier, P.A., 545 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In this case, the harm to Ramsey was not conclusively established until this court addressed whether the stock was held jointly or as tenants by the entireties. Throneburg v. Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O’Connell, P.A., 659 So. 2d at 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (knowledge of actual harm required); Drake, 583 So. 2d at 1075 (harm accrues after appellate review when issue on appeal, if decided in appellant’s favor, would have revealed attorney’s advice to be accurate).
This court’s affirmance conclusively established that the stock was held jointly not as tenants by the entireties and that the stock was not exempt from levy. Jonassen then became potentially liable for his role in transferring the stock. Ramsey’s malpractice claim, brought within two years of this court’s affirmance, was within the statute of limitations period for professional malpractice. § 95.11(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Because we reverse Ramsey’s first point on appeal, we do not address the second point raised in her brief.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taracido v. Perez-Abreu, Zamora & DE LA FE, P.A., 705 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t commence until it is reasonably clear that the client has actuálly suffered some damage from legal advice or services. Throneburg v. Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O’Connell P.A., 659 So. 2d at 1136. See also, Ramsey v. Jonassen, 698 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(legal malpractice action does not accrue until existence of actionable error is conclusively established). Here, it was not clear that the plaintiffs had suffered damage until the conclusion of the shareholder litigation. Damage…
-
Ramsey v. Jonassen, 737 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…imitations. Appellant appealed, and this court reversed, holding that Appellant’s malpractice claim did not accrue until the date of this court’s earlier decision that the stock had been titled in such a way as to allow the levy. Ramsey v. Jonassen, 698 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On remand, Appellee then filed a motion for final summary judgment, arguing that Appellant had waived her malpractice claim by failing to disclose that claim to the bankruptcy court in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding she had f…
-
Reynel Clemente v. Freshman, 760 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…n finalized or completed by appellate review. See Peat, Marwick, 565 So. 2d at 1324; Hold v. Manzini, 736 So. 2d 138, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Taracido v. Perez-Abreu, Zamora & De La Fe, P.A., 705 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ramsey v. Jonassen, 698 So. 2d 581, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Throneburg v. Boose, Casey, Ciklin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O’Connell, P.A., 659 So. 2d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Drake v. Simons, 583 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).1 This is because, until that time, it cann…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peat v. Lane, 565 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1990)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. McRAE, 545 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Segall v. Segall, 632 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Zuckerman v. Ruden, 670 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Durlene J. Drake v. Simons, 583 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)