ELSA HINESTROSA AND TTI EXPORT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD J. DIAZ, ESQUIRE AND RICHARD J. DIAZ, P.A., 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 court held that legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims cannot accrue until the underlying proceeding has terminated, but erred in dismissing them with prejudice.
Appellants sued appellees for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty related to representation in a forfeiture proceeding. Appellants initiall…
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 Accrual cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants Elsa Hinestrosa and TTI Export, Inc., appeal the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice count one (legal malpractice) and count two (breach of fiduciary duty) of appellants’ complaint.
These two claims arise from an earlier case in which appellees were retained to represent appellants in a federal proceeding regarding the seizure and forfeiture of $141,535.61. Appellants’ complaint alleged that the underlying forfeiture proceeding had terminated, and maintained this assertion throughout several years of litigation in the instant action. Appellees maintained that the underlying forfeiture proceeding had not yet terminated, and therefore these two causes of action had not yet accrued.1 Appellees filed k motion for summary judgment and sought dismissal with prejudice of these claims.
At the hearing on the motion, appellants conceded that in fact the underlying forfeiture proceeding had not yet terminated. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion and dismissed counts one and two with prejudice.
While the trial court did not err in dismissing these counts (because the causes of action had not yet accrued), it did err in dismissing the counts with prejudice.2
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to enter dismissal of counts one and two without prejudice.