Ury v. Anton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ury v. Anton

555 So. 2d 442, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 162, 1990 WL 2681

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1990

DocketNo. 88-1485

StatusPublished

This text of 555 So. 2d 442 (Ury v. Anton) 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

Ury v. Anton, 555 So. 2d 442, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 162, 1990 WL 2681 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for damages against attorneys, Jared G. Anton, and David S. Roman-ik, P.A., d/b/a Landefeld and Romanik. Summary final judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff, John M. Ury, appeals. We reverse and remand.

From our survey of the record and appellate presentation we are of the opinion that summary judgment was not proper because there were, indeed, genuine issues of material fact, the existence of which mandate that defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

There were, at least, these unresolved issues:

1. Whether Plaintiff, John M. Ury, had an attorney/client relationship with Defendants.

2. Whether there was a violation of the attorney/client relationship by Mr. Anton by reason of his failure to obtain a release of Mr. Ury’s personal guaranty.

3. Whether Mr. Ury was a third party beneficiary of the arrangement between Bumpkins, Inc. and Mr. Anton.

We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ANSTEAD, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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