COLODNY, FASS & TALENFELD, P.A., AND MICHAEL J. COLODNY, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
BAL BAY REALTY, LTD., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A law firm and its partner sought certiorari review of a trial court's sua sponte order vacating a stay of a legal malpractice action. The court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by allowing the malpractice case to proceed before the outcome of the underlying matter that forms the basis of the alleged malpractice claim.
A trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by vacating a stay of the legal malpractice action and allowing it to proceed before the underlying matter is resolved, because abatement or stay of a legal malpractice action is proper when a related or underlying judicial proceeding will determine whether damages were causally related to the alleged negligence.
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law by sua sponte vacating a stay in a legal malpractice action when the underlying judicial proceeding will…
[2] Abatement or stay of a legal malpractice action is proper upon a showing that a related or underlying judicial proceeding will determine whether damages were incurred whi…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In vacating the stay and allowing the malpractice issue to proceed to trial before the underlying matter currently pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit is resolved, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the trial court violated established law by vacating the stay prematurely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBal Bay Realty instituted a legal malpractice action against Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld and Michael J. Colodny in April 2001, alleging malpractice in c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abatement Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld, P.A. and Michael J. Colodny seek certiorari review of the lower court’s sua sponte order vacating a stay in a legal malpractice action. Finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, we grant certiorari and quash the order.
Respondent, Bal Bay Realty, Ltd., instituted the present legal malpractice action in April 2001. Therein, it alleged that Petitioners committed legal malpractice in connection with Petitioners’ representation of Respondent in a matter currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. The lower court thereafter entered an agreed order granting Petitioners’ motion to stay or abate the malpractice action pending the outcome of the underlying action in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. On September 8, 2010, the lower court vacated the stay of the legal malpractice action on its own motion and, by a separate order, set the matter for trial. The petition for "writ of certiorari ensued.
In vacating the stay and allowing the malpractice issue to proceed to trial before the underlying matter currently pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit is resolved, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. Burgess v. Lippman, 929 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (granting certio-rari and quashing an order vacating a stay of a legal malpractice action, finding that abatement or stay of a legal malpractice action “is proper upon a showing by the movant that a related or underlying judicial proceeding will determine whether damages were incurred which are causally related to the alleged negligence/malpractice”); Bierman v. Miller, 639 So.2d 627, 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in vacating a stay of a legal malpractice action and allowing the malpractice action to proceed before the issues in a pending action on a contract were resolved, stating that “[u]ntil the validity of the agreement is decided ... there can be no determination in the malpractice action as to whether [the attorney] was negligent in negotiating and drafting that agreement”).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order under review and remand with directions to abate the legal malpractice action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA v. William M. Blackshear, Jr., M.D., 136 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
Authorities Cited
- Bierman v. Miller, 639 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Burgess v. Lippman, 929 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)