Martin v. Nemec

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Martin v. Nemec

526 So. 2d 157, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1194, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002, 1988 WL 47523

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1988

DocketNo. 87-0678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 526 So. 2d 157 (Martin v. Nemec) 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

Martin v. Nemec, 526 So. 2d 157, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1194, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002, 1988 WL 47523 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, the beneficiaries under their father’s will, brought suit against appellee for legal malpractice alleging negligence in the preparation and drafting of the will, and in the advice appellee gave to the decedent regarding the will.

The record supports appellants’ argument that appellee has failed to conclusively show the absence of any genuine issues of .material fact, particularly regarding privity, see McAbee v. Edwards, 340 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and whether the alleged negligence, if any, frustrated the testator’s intent as expressed in the will, see Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein and Stauber, P.A., 467 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we reverse on the authority of Wills v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Conran v. Young, 458 So.2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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