J.D.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Carvel v. Godley, 939 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …nts have standing to bring legal and accounting malpractice actions if they are able to show “that the testator’s intent as expressed in the will is frustrated by the negligence of the testator’s attorney.” Hare v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 743 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen, and Heilbronner, 612 So. 2d 1378, 1380 (Fla.1993); Passell v. Watts, 794 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Kinney v. Shinholser, 663 So. 2d 643, 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Further…
• Smith v. Astrid DePARRY ad Litem for Scott P. Smith, III, 86 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
  …directly responsible for the loss or destruction of the codicil from which Mr. Smith was to benefit. An adverse ruling on the petition might result in a claim by Mr. Smith against Mr. Allen for damages. See Hare v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 743 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“Intended third-party beneficiaries of testamentary documents are found to have standing in legal malpractice cases if they are able to show ‘that the testator’s intent as expressed in the will is frustrated by the negligen…
• Ellerson v. Brenden S. Moriarty, Esquire & the Moriarty LAW Firm, P. A., 331 So. 3d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
  …hey are able to show "that the testator's intent as expressed in the will is frustrated by the negligence of the testator's attorney." ' " Passell v. Watts, 794 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (quoting Hare v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 743 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Angel, Cohen & Rogovin v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192, 194 (Fla. 1987) ("For the beneficiaries' action in negligence to fall within the exception to the privity requirement, testamentary intent as expressed…