Boyd v. Brett-Major

449 So.2d 952 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps' son was required to post a criminal appearance bond. A bonding company agreed to post the $100,000 bond and in return Ps signed a mortgage and promissory note encumbering their home. The bonding company failed to file an affidavit as required by Section 903.14, Florida Statutes (1983). That failure created an absolute defense to any subsequent foreclosure action. Ps' son failed to appear in court and the bond was estreated. The bond company filed a mortgage foreclosure action. Ps retained D to represent them in the action. D filed an answer absent the defense of the bonding company’s failure to file the affidavit. The bonding company got a summary judgment and Ps then sued D for malpractice. Ps claim that they wished to win the suit. D contends that Ps wished to maintain an ongoing relationship with the bonding company and that D delay the action so that they could raise the funds to repay the debt. D alleges that Ps specifically instructed D to protect their interests in an agreement that they had negotiated with all the bondsmen and that D acted in accordance with the instructions given to her. D also claimed that she also explained various potential defenses to the foreclosure action brought by the bondsmen.