Dingle v. Dellinger
134 So. 3d 484
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- John Kyreakakis, sole shareholder/agent of Whiteway Investments (Panamanian corp.), retained attorney Jacqueline Dellinger (Millhorn Law Firm) to prepare a quitclaim deed conveying Whiteway property to Robert and Janet Dingle.
- Kyreakakis provided an English translation of a Panamanian power of attorney; Dellinger drafted and recorded the quitclaim deed; later Kyreakakis died and his widow successfully challenged the conveyance in Dingle v. Prikhdina.
- The Dingles sued Dellinger and Millhorn for legal malpractice; defendants moved to dismiss arguing no attorney-client privity and thus no duty to the Dingles.
- The trial court dismissed the Dingles’ claims with prejudice after several amendments; the Dingles appealed.
- The Fifth District reviewed de novo whether the complaint pleaded sufficient facts that Dellinger and Millhorn owed a duty to the Dingles as intended third‑party beneficiaries of Whiteway’s contract with the attorneys.
- The court affirmed dismissal of negligent training/supervision claim but reversed dismissal of professional negligence and vicarious liability claims, holding the third amended complaint plausibly alleged intended third‑party beneficiary status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney owed duty to nonclient Dingles (privity rule) | Dingles: no privity but were intended third‑party beneficiaries of Whiteway's contract with the attorneys, so a duty existed | Dellinger: privity required; no duty to nonclients absent fraud or special circumstances | Held: Complaint sufficiently alleged intended third‑party beneficiary status; duty could exist — dismissal reversed as to malpractice claim |
| Whether the contract showed intent to primarily and directly benefit Dingles | Dingles: Whiteway hired attorney to effectuate a gift to them (one‑sided transaction) | Dellinger: real estate transfer is typically two‑sided; representing Whiteway cannot create duty to donees | Held: Allegations support that transaction was effectively one‑sided (no adverse interests), so third‑party beneficiary exception can apply |
| Scope/limits of third‑party beneficiary malpractice claims | Dingles: limited exception applies where donor/grantor intended beneficiary specifically and loss resulted from attorney negligence | Dellinger: broad exposure would follow; exception limited to testamentary-type or single‑sided affairs | Held: Court applies a narrow exception (consistent with cases like Holsapple), recognizing liability where donor intended beneficiary and expectancy was lost due to negligence |
| Vicarious liability and negligent supervision claims against Millhorn | Dingles: Millhorn vicariously liable for agent Dellinger's malpractice; also alleged negligent supervision/training | Millhorn: argued no duty and attacked sufficiency of claims | Held: Vicarious liability claim survives (acts within scope of agency); negligent supervision/training claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dingle v. Prikhdina, 59 So.3d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (prior decision holding the conveyance invalid)
- Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen & Heilbronner, 612 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1993) (privity rule and third‑party beneficiary exception in legal malpractice)
- Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Sec. Nat’l Servicing Corp., 969 So.2d 962 (Fla. 2007) (elements required to plead attorney malpractice)
- Holsapple v. McGrath, 521 N.W.2d 711 (Iowa 1994) (recognizing limited third‑party malpractice claims in donative transfers where beneficiary was specifically identified and expectancy lost by attorney negligence)
- Admiral Merchs. Motor Freight, Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1992) (analysis of factors supporting third‑party malpractice liability)
- First Fla. Bank, N.A. v. Max Mitchell & Co., 558 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1990) (professionals may be liable to known, intended nonclient beneficiaries who rely on their work)