DONNA HAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MENSH AND MACINTOSH, P.A., 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.
Donna Hand appealed the dismissal of her legal malpractice complaint against the law firm Mensh and Macintosh, which represented her in child support proceedings. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida statutory immunity under section 409.2564(6) bars negligence-based malpractice claims against entities acting on behalf of the Department of Revenue in support enforcement matters.
The court held that Hand's allegations of negligence alone are insufficient to waive the statutory immunity provided by section 409.2564(6) to the firm, and therefore the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because Hand admitted she could not amend the complaint to allege facts sufficient to waive immunity.
[1] A statute providing immunity from tort liability for actions taken to establish, enforce, or modify support obligations requires good faith, apparent legal authority, abs…
[2] Allegations of negligence alone are insufficient to state a cause of action for legal malpractice against a firm acting as agents for the Department of Revenue in child s…
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“The department and its officers, employees, and agents and all persons and agencies acting pursuant to contract with the department are immune from liability in tort for actions taken to establish, enforce, or modify support obligations if such actions are taken in good faith, with apparent legal authority, without malicious purpose, and in a manner not exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of rights or property of another.”
Establishes the statutory immunity under section 409.2564(6) that bars Hand's negligence-based malpractice claim against the firm.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMensh and Macintosh, P.A. represented the Department of Revenue as program attorneys in Hand's child support case. Hand alleged the firm refused to co…
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 Malicious Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donna Hand appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her amended complaint for legal malpractice against Mensh and Macintosh, P.A. (the Firm). The trial court dismissed the amended complaint on the ground that the allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action. We affirm.
The Firm represented the Department of Revenue, on Hand’s behalf, as program attorneys in State court child support proceedings. Hand’s amended complaint alleges many facts which would be sufficient to support an action for negligence by the Firm.1 However, section 409.2564(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides immunity for the Firm when only negligence is alleged. Section 409.2564(6) provides:
The department and its officers, employees, and agents and all persons and agencies acting pursuant to contract with the department are immune from liability in tort for actions taken to establish, enforce, or modify support obligations if such actions are taken in good faith, with apparent legal authority, without malicious purpose, and in a manner not exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of rights or property of another. In view of the immunity provided by this statute, we conclude that the facts alleged in the amended complaint fail to state a cause of action sufficient to waive the immunity of the Firm under section 409.2564(6). Additionally, Hand told the trial court that she was unable to amend the complaint to include allegations sufficient to waive immunity. Accordingly, the final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice is affirmed.
Affirmed.
PARKER, C.J., and FRANK and FULMER, JJ., concur. . Hand’s amended complaint alleges that the Firm refused to communicate with her, that there were long delays before her case was heard, that the Firm refused to appeal an order, which Hand thereafter appealed pro se and obtained a reversal of that order. The complaint also alleges that the Firm failed to gain enforcement of an income deduction order, failed to obtain a properly executed lien, and waited seven months to file a memorandum of law on a driver’s license revocation hearing, which required Hand to proceed pro se to convince the trial court to revoke the driver’s license. Hand’s complaint alleges that the Firm’s handling of her case resulted in monetary damage to her of over $79,000.