Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves consolidated legal malpractice actions concerning the statute of limitations. The appellant, Gregory A. Wilkerson, filed a malpractice claim against Gerald B. Sternstein for negligent tax advice provided in 1982, which Sternstein contended was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice. Subsequently, Wilkerson also filed a malpractice claim against attorney Gerald Hart, alleging that Hart failed to inform him of the potential claim against Sternstein before the limitations period expired. Hart moved for summary judgment, asserting that the statute of limitations had not expired when Wilkerson's suit against Sternstein was filed. The trial court granted Hart's motion for summary judgment, referencing the rationale in Lane v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co., and distinguishing the case from Kellermeyer v. Miller. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, with Judges Smith, Miner, and Allen concurring, thereby upholding the application of the statute of limitations and the summary judgment in Hart's favor.
Legal Issues Addressed
Precedential Consistency in Florida Appellate Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found the case distinguishable from Kellermeyer, affirming the trial court's order in line with the precedent set in Lane.
Reasoning: Wilkerson argued that Lane conflicted with Kellermeyer v. Miller, 427 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), but the court found the cases distinguishable.
Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice to bar the appellant's claim, affirming the trial court's decision.
Reasoning: Sternstein defended by asserting that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice.
Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant attorney, finding that the statute of limitations had not yet expired when the malpractice action was initially filed.
Reasoning: The trial court granted Hart’s motion and entered summary judgment in his favor, a decision consistent with the rationale in Lane.