From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bricker v. Kay

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 13, 1984
446 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-2571.

March 13, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, James C. Henderson, J.

Harold M. Braxton, Miami, for appellant.

Howard I. Kay, pro se.

Arnold Ginsberg, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.


Ten days before expiration of the statute of limitations appellee-defendant, an attorney at law, was retained to institute a lawsuit against "Lum's Restaurant Corp." After expiration of the time within which suit could commence it was learned that the wrong defendant was named. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff then instituted this action against the attorney alleging legal malpractice. The complaint, as amended, was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

The only determination the court undertakes in considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is whether, upon examination of the four corners of the complaint, the allegations are sufficient to sustain a claim for relief. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956). Whether plaintiff can prove negligence on the part of defendant is not at issue. We have examined the complaint and find no deficiency.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Bricker v. Kay

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 13, 1984
446 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Bricker v. Kay

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL S. BRICKER, APPELLANT, v. HOWARD I. KAY, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 13, 1984

Citations

446 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Martin

We also note that, in addition to contending that the second amended complaint did not state a cause of…

Nottage v. American Exp. Co.

Further, whether the exception provided in Section 540.08(3)(c) applies to the facts of this case cannot be…