Marholin v. Kaye

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marholin v. Kaye

503 So. 2d 950, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 669, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12000

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1987

DocketNo. 86-729

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 So. 2d 950 (Marholin v. Kaye) 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

Marholin v. Kaye, 503 So. 2d 950, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 669, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12000 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse a summary judgment in favor of an attorney in a malpractice action based on the running of the statute of limitations because there was a material issue of fact as to whether or not the attorney “lulled” his clients into refraining from filing a malpractice action by acknowledging his responsibility for their loss and urging them not to commence such an action in consideration of which he would make them whole, either personally or through his insurance carrier. Parker v. Dinsmore Company, 443 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Prudential Insurance Company, 415 So.2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Brewer v. Vandervalk, 374 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. Hussey, 363 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Southern Reinforcing Steel Co., Inc., 348 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse a summary judgment in favor of an attorney in a malpractice action based on the running of the statute of limitations because there was a material issue of fact as to whether or not the attorney “lulled” his clients into refraining from filing a malpractice action by acknowledging his responsibility for their loss and urging them not to commence such an action in consideration of which he would make them whole, either personally or through his insurance carrier. Parker v. Dinsmore Company, 443 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Prudential Insurance Company, 415 So.2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Brewer v. Vandervalk, 374 So.2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. Hussey, 363 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Southern Reinforcing Steel Co., Inc., 348 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 So. 2d 950, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 669, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marholin-v-kaye-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack