MARCELLA SCHETTER AND KENNETH SCHETTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. E. JORDAN, 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.
Summary judgment for attorney defendant on statute of limitations grounds was reversed because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when plaintiff discovered the attorney's alleged negligence, making the limitations period a question for the jury rather than the court.
The statute of limitations for attorney malpractice is triggered by when the client discovers or should discover the attorney's negligence, which is a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment.
[1] In an action against an attorney for malpractice, the statute of limitations is triggered by the client's discovery of the attorney's negligence, and when such discovery…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 applicability of the statute of limitations to the plaintiffs' cause of action for malpractice against the attorney-defendant is dependent upon when the attorney's alleged act of negligence became known to the client which matter is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact and not by the court in a summary proceeding.”
Court explaining why summary judgment was improper when the discovery date of negligence was disputed
Plaintiffs sued their attorney for malpractice. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorney based on the statute of li…
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 Question Of Fact For Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Marcella Schetter and Kenneth Schetter, plaintiffs below, from a final judgment entered on behalf of E. E. Jordan, defendant below.
From a reading of the record, there is implicit in the entry of the final summary judgment the court’s determination that the statute of limitations governing an action against an attorney for malpractice barred plaintiff’s claim against defendant. A further review of the record, however, reflects the existence of genuine issues of material fact with respect to when the plaintiff received notice or knowledge of her attorney’s alleged act of negligence. The applicability of the statute of limitations to the plaintiffs’ cause of action for malpractice against the attorney-defendant is dependent upon when the attorney’s alleged act of negligence became known to the client which matter is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact and not by the court in a summary proceeding. Edwards v. Ford, Fla.1973, 279 So. 2d 851; Hart v. Hart, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 393; Coquina Ridge Properties v. East West Company, Fla.App. 1971, 255 So. 2d 279; Nance v. Ball, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 35.
Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
WALDEN, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Jacquelyn Yon McABEE v. Edwards, 340 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ed upon the reasoning of the foregoing authorities we hold that the complaint stated a cause of action. We also hold that whether the action is barred by a statute of limitations is a factual question not to be decided summarily. Schetter v. Jordan, 294 So. 2d 130 (Fla.App. 4th 1974). It was therefore improper for the trial court to enter judgment on the pleadings in appellees’ favor. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED…
-
Stanford Birnholz v. Blake, 399 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ch the negligent act which caused the damages was actually committed.” [emphasis supplied] Edwards v. Ford, 279 So. 2d 851, 853 (Fla. 1973), adopting (and quoting) Downing v. Vaine, 228 So. 2d 622, 625 (Fla.1st DCA 1969); accord, Schetter v. Jordan, 294 So. 2d 130 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). Appellees rely upon our decision in Henzel v. Fink, 340 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1977). We readily distinguish that decision because there seven years had elapsed after the client had lea…
-
Pinkerton v. West, 353 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…rney-defendant is dependent upon when the attorney’s alleged act of negligence became known to the client which matter is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of the fact and nqt by the court in a summary proceeding.” Schetter v. Jordan, 294 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). This cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. DOWNEY, J., and MARVIN U. MOUNTS, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nance v. Linzy Ball and June Ball, 134 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Edwards v. Ford, 279 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1973)
- Coquina Ridge Props. v. E. W. Co., 255 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Hart v. Kenneth H. Hart and his wife, 234 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)