De Varona v. De Souza

District Court of Appeal of Florida

De Varona v. De Souza

824 So. 2d 985, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2002 WL 1906210

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 21, 2002·No. No. 3D02-1845·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari in part. As the respondent’s counsel commendably concedes, the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to abate the legal malpractice claim. Perez-Abreu, Zamora & De La Fe, P.A. v. Taracido, 790 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2001). That portion of the order declining to abate count III of respondent’s complaint is hereby quashed and shall be abated o,n remand. This same reasoning, however, does not compel abatement of the fraudulent inducement claim asserted in count IV. The petition is denied as to count IV.

Certiorari granted in part; denied in part and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari in part. As the respondent’s counsel commendably concedes, the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to abate the legal malpractice claim. Perez-Abreu, Zamora & De La Fe, P.A. v. Taracido, 790 So.2d 1051 (Fla.2001). That portion of the order declining to abate count III of respondent’s complaint is hereby quashed and shall be abated o,n remand. This same reasoning, however, does not compel abatement of the fraudulent inducement claim asserted in count IV. The petition is denied as to count IV.

Certiorari granted in part; denied in part and remanded.

De Varona v. De Souza, 824 So. 2d 985, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12027, 2002 WL 1906210 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

824 So. 2d 985 (De Varona v. De Souza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related