Gogoleva v. Soffer
187 So. 3d 268
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 22, 2012 a helicopter crash in the Bahamas killed Lance Valdez. Occupants included Valdez, David Pearce (licensed pilot), Jeffrey Soffer (co-pilot seat, not licensed for that helicopter), Paula and Daniel Riordan, and others.
- Gogoleva (decedent’s wife) and the three minor children were claimants to a $2 million insurance settlement paid by North American Elite (NAE). Gogoleva retained Miami counsel Steven Marks, who also represented Soffer and the Riordans; Gogoleva alleges Marks failed to disclose conflicts and misadvised her.
- Gogoleva and the other three claimants executed a broad "Settlement Agreement and Release" that on its face released the insurer, owners/operators, Pearce, and contained ambiguous language purporting to release co-Releasors ("each another"). Gogoleva alleges defendants induced her to release Soffer and the Riordans by misrepresentations.
- Probate guardianship orders were entered for each child to accept the settlement funds; $150,000 was placed in each guardianship and the remainder distributed to Gogoleva; the probate court approved the settlement.
- Gogoleva sued Soffer, the Riordans, and Krys in circuit court alleging wrongful death, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, rescission, and declaratory relief; defendants moved to dismiss and the court dismissed (without prejudice) and directed that any relief affecting probate judgments should be pursued via the probate division (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540).
- The appellate court affirmeda dismissal as to rescission (Count IV) for failure to join indispensable parties and because the Release is indivisible, but reversed and remanded other dismissals and reversed the transfer-to-probate mandate, permitting amendment and further civil litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/ambiguity of Release (did Release bar claims vs. co-Releasors) | Gogoleva: Release is ambiguous; language purportedly releasing co-Releasors was not required by insurer and should not bar fraud claims about post-accident misrepresentations | Defendants: Release bars claims against co-Releasors; settlement should be enforced to foreclose these claims | Court: Ambiguity exists; parol evidence/admissions bear on meaning; fraudulent inducement claims based on post-accident misrepresentations are not within the Release on its face; issue for discovery/trial |
| Fraudulent inducement / post-accident misrepresentations (claims survive release) | Gogoleva: Misrepresentations induced her to sign; claims for fraudulent inducement remain | Defendants: Such claims are released or barred by the settlement | Court: Fraudulent inducement claims are legally sufficient because they concern post-accident conduct not plainly within Release's scope (citing Mazzoni Farms) |
| Rescission and indivisibility / indispensable parties | Gogoleva: Seeks rescission of Release as to co-Releasors; offers to tender funds or obtain consent | Defendants: Release is indivisible; partial rescission unavailable; unnamed Releasees/insurers are indispensable parties | Court: Affirmed dismissal of rescission claim—partial rescission requires restoring status quo and joinder of all affected Releasees; Gogoleva may amend to join those parties |
| Transfer to probate division / jurisdictional allocation | Gogoleva: Civil claims may proceed in civil division; probate does not exclusively control ambiguity issues; guardianships involve only part of proceeds | Defendants: Probate orders approving settlement are final judgments; circuit court should transfer or require 1.540 proceedings | Court: Reversed transfer mandate; probate not exclusively entitled to decide all issues; transfer was premature; civil suit may proceed and guardianship matters can be severed or later addressed if disgorgement or guardianship funds are implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2000) (fraudulent inducement claims not necessarily barred by a release when they fall outside scope)
- Sun Microsystems of Cal., Inc. v. Eng'r & Mfg. Sys., C.A., 682 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (public policy favors enforcing settlements)
- Mu oz Hnos., S.A. v. Editorial Televisa Int'l., S.A., 121 So.3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (contracts governed by ordinary principles of contract interpretation)
- DSL Internet Corp. v. TigerDirect, Inc., 907 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (parol evidence admissible to interpret ambiguous contract terms)
- Vargas v. Schweitzer-Ramras, 878 So.2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (ambiguities construed against drafter absent evidence of intent)
- Bethel v. Security National Insurance Co., 949 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (indivisible release and joinder/indispensable parties principles)
- Allman v. Wolfe, 592 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (partial rescission unavailable where indivisibility and joinder issues exist)
- Parker v. Parker, 950 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2007) (probate approval of settlement treated as final judgment; Rule 1.540(b) and independent action for extrinsic fraud)
- Chanin v. Feigenheimer, 111 So.3d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (claims filed in wrong division should be transferred to correct civil division rather than dismissed)