Duckworth v. Brookman

483 So. 2d 881, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 556, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6650
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 4, 1986
DocketNo. 85-1104
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 881 (Duckworth v. Brookman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duckworth v. Brookman, 483 So. 2d 881, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 556, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment entered below in favor of the defendant in this legal malpractice action is affirmed based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the claimed acts of legal malpractice resulted, without material dispute, in the entry of a default judgment in a marriage dissolution action against the plaintiff herein, Ingrid 0. Duckworth, the former wife. Second, the default judgment was a limited one in that it simply dissolved the marriage between the parties — to which the plaintiff had no objection — awarded permanent custody of the parties’ minor children to the plaintiff’s former husband, and retained jurisdiction generally. Third, the trial court, upon motion of the plaintiff, subsequently set aside the default judgment as to the child custody award, which order this court affirmed on appeal, Duckworth v. Duckworth, 414 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Fourth, the plaintiff subsequently entered into a voluntary settlement agreement with her former husband in which (a) she was given substantial monetary benefits, and (b) her former husband was given permanent custody of the parties’ minor children in accord with the prior default judgment. Fifth, it has therefore been established below that the plaintiff suffered no compensable legal damages as a result of the claimed malpractice in this case, thereby fully justifying the entry of the summary judgment herein. Manner v. Goldstein Professional Association, 436 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Sixth, no compensable claim for fraud, intentional infliction of mental distress, or punitive damages was presented below.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Prager v. MARKS BROTHERS COMPANY
483 So. 2d 881 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
483 So. 2d 881, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 556, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duckworth-v-brookman-fladistctapp-1986.