Miami Beach Community Church, Inc. v. Stanton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami Beach Community Church, Inc. v. Stanton

611 So. 2d 538, 1992 WL 353633

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

Docket91-2933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 611 So. 2d 538 (Miami Beach Community Church, Inc. v. Stanton) 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

Miami Beach Community Church, Inc. v. Stanton, 611 So. 2d 538, 1992 WL 353633 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

611 So.2d 538 (1992)

MIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC., a not-for-profit Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
Fred R. STANTON, L. Jules Arkin, John Constantino, Jr., Nicholas M. Daniels, Lyle Donald Holcomb, Jr., Ellen Rose, Lee Rose, Jr., David I. Safer, and Howard A. Seitlin, as general partners of Therrel Baisden & Meyer Weiss, a general partnership, Appellees.

No. 91-2933.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 1, 1992. Rehearing Denied February 9, 1993.

Mark V. Silverio, and Cynthia M. Byrne, Miami, for appellant.

Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Lowe & Adler, and Joseph H. Lowe, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm based on the rule that a frustrated beneficiary of a will does not have a legal malpractice action against the testator's lawyer unless the testator's intent as expressed in the will, not as shown by extrinsic evidence, is frustrated due to the lawyer's negligence. Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen & Heilbronner, 586 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, P.A., 467 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

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