Florida Supreme Court Update

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in Larson & Larson P.A. v. TSE Industries, Inc., Case No. SC08-428 (Fla. Nov. 5, 2009), which can be found here. 

 

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Canady, held that the two-year statute of limitations for litigation-related legal malpractice claims can begin to run on one of two different accrual dates:  (1) on the entry of the underlying judgment when that judgment becomes final; or (2) on the entry of a subsequent, post-trial sanctions judgment.

 

Justices Polston, Labarga and Perry concurred with Justice Canady’s opinion, to the extent it held that the statute of limitations begins to run on the entry of the underlying judgment.  However, Justices Quince, Lewis, Canday, Polston and Labarga concurred with Justice Canady’s opinion, to the extent it held that the statute of limitations begins to run on the entry of a subsequent, post-trial sanctions judgment.

 

Justice Perry issued a partial concurring and dissenting opinion, stating that, in accordance with the prior precedent of Sivlerstrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998), the statute of limitations should have run from the date the trial court’s underlying judgment became final for purposes of appeal. 

 

Justice Lewis issued a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the opinion of the lower court in TSE Industries, Inc. v. Larson & Larson, Inc., 987 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), which, pursuant to Silverstrone, held that the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the entry of a subsequent, post-trial sanctions judgment.  Justices Quince and Pariente concurred in Justice Lewis’ dissent.

 

Prepared by:  Rob Telfer

rtelfer@lawfla.com