Magula ex rel. Magula v. Infante

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Magula ex rel. Magula v. Infante

616 So. 2d 1191, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1993 WL 120384

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1472

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 616 So. 2d 1191 (Magula ex rel. Magula v. Infante) 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

Magula ex rel. Magula v. Infante, 616 So. 2d 1191, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1993 WL 120384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the dismissal of their complaint which attempts to reopen a medical malpractice action against appellees. [1192]*1192That action was terminated favorably to appellees several years ago. Appellants claim extrinsic fraud because of the legal malpractice of appellants’ attorney in the prior case. Appellant conceded at oral argument that he did not claim that there was any fraud committed by appellees or any collusion between appellees and appellants’ former attorney. There is a pending malpractice claim against the former attorney.

We affirm, as allegations of legal malpractice against the attorney do not constitute extrinsic fraud so as to set aside the judgment. Parker v. Parker, 585 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Calehuff v. Calehuff, 433 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal the dismissal of their complaint which attempts to reopen a medical malpractice action against appellees. [1192]*1192That action was terminated favorably to appellees several years ago. Appellants claim extrinsic fraud because of the legal malpractice of appellants’ attorney in the prior case. Appellant conceded at oral argument that he did not claim that there was any fraud committed by appellees or any collusion between appellees and appellants’ former attorney. There is a pending malpractice claim against the former attorney.

We affirm, as allegations of legal malpractice against the attorney do not constitute extrinsic fraud so as to set aside the judgment. Parker v. Parker, 585 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Calehuff v. Calehuff, 433 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 1191, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1993 WL 120384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magula-ex-rel-magula-v-infante-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack