KJB Village Property, LLC v. Craig M. Dorne, P.A.
77 So. 3d 727
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Berman purchased Siam Bagel, assumed an existing lease, and was represented by Dome in the purchase.
- Shoppes planned condominium development; Greenwald offered alternatives including early lease termination and eventually a condo unit.
- Dome advised that marketable title meant free and clear, but the final agreement required delivery of marketable title to Unit 1105 within 42 months or a monetary remedy of $443,900.
- The deed conveyed Unit 1105 with an undisclosed construction loan mortgage encumbrance.
- Siam and KJB sued for failure to deliver a free of liens unit and for nondisclosure; the developers were later dropped from part of the action.
- Siam filed a legal malpractice suit against Dome; the trial court granted summary judgment for Dome, and Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redressable harm exists in legal malpractice claim | Berman would have recovered from Developer; harm persists. | Harm cannot be shown if contract issues would have governed relief. | No redressable harm; barred. |
| Whether the contract could have yielded relief against the Developer | Agreement allowed damages up to the property value. | Damages depend on delivery, not Dome's drafting. | Appellants would have recovered against Developer; harm precluded malpractice claim. |
| Whether undisclosed mortgage voids marketable title under the contract | Marketable title includes absence of undisclosed encumbrances. | Title definition recognizes encumbrances; harm from breach is precluded by abandonment. | Mortgage undisclosed; breach by Developer; no liability for Dome given lack of redressable harm. |
| Whether expert testimony on contract interpretation was proper | Evidence on meaning of marketable title is disputed. | Contract terms have legal meaning; expert testimony improper on legal questions. | Correct to treat marketable title as a legal issue; expert testimony improper on legal question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maillard v. Dowdell, 528 So.2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (elements of legal malpractice and need for causation)
- Oteiza v. Braxton, 547 So.2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (but-for causation in legal malpractice; appeal outcome)
- City of Ocala v. Graham, 864 So.2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law when only one inference is reasonable)
- Bierman v. Miller, 639 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (abating malpractice action until validity of underlying agreement is decided)
- Bailey v. First Mortgage Corp. of Boca Raton, 478 So.2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (undisclosed mortgage constitutes a defect in title rendering it unmarketable)
- Wilcox v. Atkins, 213 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (legal terms in contract must be given their proper legal meaning)
- Roth v. Rosa Bros. Inc., 513 So.2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (advise against signing a contract that later fully complies with parties' intent)
- Hatcher v. Roberts, 478 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (related action issues; relevance to malpractice causation)