HERBERT GAUTREAUX AND CAROL GAUTREAUX, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANKLIN D. GREENMAN, JAMES A. NOTARANTONIO D/B/A WINNER SOMBRERO DOCKS, 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 Gautreauxs negotiated an escrow agreement with opposing counsel Greenman to hold $7,000 in attorney's fees pending appeal, with a notation that appellate rights were reserved. After the appellate court reversed the fee award, Greenman refused to return the funds. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the Gautreauxs' motion to file a third-party complaint against Greenman as an escrow agent.
The court held that the proposed third-party complaint adequately alleged a cause of action against Greenman as an escrow agent. Although an attorney generally is not liable for his client's obligation to return proceeds of a reversed judgment, Greenman's obligations here arose solely from his status as an escrow agent, and the fact that he was an attorney was irrelevant to that liability.
[1] A party who deposits funds as a supersedeas pending appeal, with an agreement that the funds are to be returned if the appeal is successful, may bring a third-party compl…
[2] An attorney acting as an escrow agent or stakeholder is subject to the duties and liabilities of that role, irrespective of their status as an attorney.
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“the proposed third party complaint adequately alleged a cause of action against Greenman as an escrow agent for his failure to comply with the terms of the escrow agreement”
States the holding that Greenman's obligations arise from his escrow agent status, not his status as counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gautreauxs were ordered to pay $7,000 in attorney's fees to Greenman in the underlying litigation. Before appealing, they negotiated an agreement …
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 Breach Of Escrow Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After an adverse judgment, which included a ruling that they were liable for their opponent’s attorney’s fees, the Gautreauxs negotiated an agreement with Greenman, the opposing lawyer, in which they were to pay $7,000 for those fees pending, however, them right to review that ruling on appeal.
Accordingly, Gautreaux sent a $7,000 check payable to Greenman which bore the legend “attorney fees ... all appellate rights reserved including return of attorney fees [sic]” — an understanding which was confirmed by letter shortly thereafter. The $7,000 check, which Greenman deposited in his firm’s account, was thus, in effect, to serve as a supersedeas to await the outcome of the appeal. This court’s opinion in Gautreaux v. Notarantonio, 687 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and an accompanying unreported clerk’s order generally rejected the Gautreauxs’ contentions on the merits. We did, however, uphold their position that they were not liable for attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, after the mandate was issued, the Gau-treauxs demanded that Greenman return the $7,000. When he declined, they sought leave to file a third party complaint against Green-man himself to recover the funds. The present appeal challenges the trial court’s denial of that motion.
We reverse because the proposed third party complaint adequately alleged a cause of action against Greenman as an escrow agent for his failure to comply with the terms of the escrow agreement. See United Am. Bank v. Seligman, 599 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1992); 22 Fla.Jur.2d Escrow § 12 (1998).
Greenman’s argument that an attorney is not liable as such upon his client’s obligation to return the proceeds of a reversed judgment, see Wall v. Johnson, 80 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1955); Martin v. Lenahan, 658 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), is both entirely correct and quite irrelevant. His alleged obligations in this ease arise solely from his status as an escrow agent or stakeholder, as to which the fact that he happens to be an attorney is of no moment. See Mizrahi v. Valdes-Fauli, Cobb & Petrey, 671 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
For these reasons, the order denying the motion to file a third party complaint against Greenman is reversed and the cause is remanded for further appropriate proceedings.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wall v. Peggie Johnson, 80 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1955)
- United Am. Bank OF Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Seligman, 599 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Douglas Martin, M.D. v. Lenahan, 658 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Mizrahi v. Valdes-Fauli, Cobb & Petrey, P.A., 671 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Gautreaux v. Notarantonio, 687 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Montiel v. Trevilla, 687 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)