From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shear v. Hornsby and Whisenand, P.A

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 11, 1992
603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

In Shear v. Hornsby & Whisenand, P.A., 603 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), for example, summary judgment was reversed because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the law firm sufficiently advised a client that he might end up being liable for opposing fees if the client pursued a mechanic's lien.

Summary of this case from Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore

Opinion

No. 91-2363.

August 11, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Joseph P. Farina, J.

Thornton, David, Murray, Richard Davis, P.A. and Barry L. Davis, Miami, for appellant.

Stephens, Lynn, Klein McNicholas, P.A., Gary Khutorsky and Philip D. Parrish, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.


Gary Shear appeals from a final summary judgment in an action for legal malpractice. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Shear, a general contractor, hired Hornsby Whisenand to represent him in a contract dispute with a former client. The law firm filed suit for Shear, seeking to foreclose a mechanic's lien, and, in the alternative, seeking an equitable lien and damages under a quantum meruit theory. The trial court ultimately denied Shear recovery upon a finding that no contract existed between the parties. Because Shear had not prevailed on the mechanic's lien claim, the trial court ordered Shear to pay the defendant attorney's fees of $36,067.02 pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1989).

The action against the firm has been stayed because the firm filed for dissolution. This appeal concerns the liability of the individual attorney who represented Shear.

Shear then sued the law firm, alleging, inter alia, that the firm had negligently advised him to file a claim to foreclose a mechanic's lien and had not informed him of his potential liability for attorney's fees should that claim prove unsuccessful.

The record is not sufficiently developed to support the granting of summary judgment as genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the client was properly advised of his possible exposure to an award of statutory attorney's fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Shear v. Hornsby and Whisenand, P.A

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 11, 1992
603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

In Shear v. Hornsby & Whisenand, P.A., 603 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), for example, summary judgment was reversed because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the law firm sufficiently advised a client that he might end up being liable for opposing fees if the client pursued a mechanic's lien.

Summary of this case from Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore

In Shear v. Hornsby & Whisenand, P.A., 603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), for example, summary judgment was reversed because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the law firm sufficiently advised a client that he might end up being liable for opposing fees if the client pursued a mechanic's lien.

Summary of this case from Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore
Case details for

Shear v. Hornsby and Whisenand, P.A

Case Details

Full title:GARY O. SHEAR, APPELLANT, v. HORNSBY AND WHISENAND, P.A., ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 11, 1992

Citations

603 So. 2d 129 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore

However, these actions do not resolve the “genuine issue of material fact as to whether the attorney's…

Marine Res. Dev. Found., Inc. v. Moore

Daytona Dev. Corp. v. McFarland, 505 So. 2d 464, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In Shear v. Hornsby & Whisenand,…