Opinion · District Court of Appeal of Florida
Diaz v. Piquette
Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Date
- 1986-10-28
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- no claim for attorney malpractice would have existed if the temporary results of attorney's conduct had been reversed on appeal
- no legal malpractice cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued until the existence of redressable harm has been established
- no cause of action arises for malpractice allegedly resulting in the loss of plaintiff's case at trial until the adverse judgment is affirmed on appeal because the "the temporary results of the attorney's conduct" could be reversed if there is an appeal
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Diaz v. Piquette. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 38 opinions
Bismark DIAZ and Bis D. Corp., Appellants,
v.
William J. PIQUETTE, Appellee.
No. 86-51.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
October 28, 1986.*240 Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Arnaldo Velez, Miami, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and John R. Kelso, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We reverse the summary judgment entered below on limitations grounds upon the determination that the period for commencing an action on appellants' claim for alleged legal malpractice resulting in the loss of their case at trial did not begin to run until the adverse judgment was affirmed on appeal.[1] In so ruling, we follow the square recent holding in Richards Enterprises v. Swofford, 495 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); strong indications in other Florida decisions that this is the rule, see Chapman v. Garcia, 463 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Birnholz v. Blake, 399 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); and the better reasoned authority in other jurisdictions. Bowman v. Abramson, 545 F. Supp. 227 (E.D.Pa. 1982); Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, 138 Ariz. 152, 673 P.2d 792 (1983); see also Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Osborne, 573 F. Supp. 1045 (E.D.Ky. 1983). Most important, since it is plain that no claim would even have existed if the temporary results of the attorney's conduct had been reversed on appeal, this decision is in accordance with the salutary concomitant principles that premature, possibly useless, litigation should be discouraged and that no cause of action should therefore be deemed to have accrued until the existence of redressable harm has been established. Birnholz v. Blake, 399 So.2d 375; Moore v. Morris, 429 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting), rev'd, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985).
Since, under this holding, the instant action was timely commenced, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further consistent proceedings.
NOTES
[1] See Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).