HERNANDO MARIN, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSE BATISTA; DIAZ & BATISTA, P.A., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An attorney refused to return $58,000 held in trust for his client, claiming he would withhold the funds until compensated for services despite no agreement authorizing such a setoff. The appellate court denied certiorari review, finding the trial court's order was not final and that the client had an adequate remedy by appeal once the trial court resolved the underlying conversion and replevin claims.
The order is not reviewable by certiorari because it is not a final order, and the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal from the final judgment once the trial court resolves the remaining claims. The order is also not immediately appealable under the exception for orders determining the right to immediate possession of property, as the fund remains in trust pending final determination.
[1] An order dismissing a complaint is generally not reviewable by certiorari when the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal from the final order.
[2] Funds held in a trust account by an attorney may be the subject of an action for conversion.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Money and other property of clients coming into the hands of an attorney are not subject to counterclaim or setoff for attorney fees, and a refusal to account for and deliver over such property upon demand shall be deemed a conversion.”
Establishes the controlling rule from Florida Bar regulations that attorneys cannot use setoff of fees against trust funds and that withholding constitutes conversion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Marin hired respondent-attorneys Batista and his firm. When Marin demanded return of $58,000 held in a trust account, the attorneys refused…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conversion Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By a complaint for replevin, conversion and professional negligence, the petitioner sought, among other things, an order for the return of $58,000 held in trust by his former attorney. There was never an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents that the funds would be used to pay attorney’s fees.
In a letter responding to the petitioner’s first demand for the return of the trust funds, the respondent-attorneys wrote:
[Pjlease rest assured that [the $58,000] is deposited in a trust account and will not be released to your greedy little hands until I am compensated for my services and the United States government releases me of any responsibility in connection with the forfeiture of these monies.
The United States government, however, has made no claim to the monies.
The order on review, by petition for writ of certiorari, dismissed the first count for replevin and denied the dismissal as to the counts for conversion and negligence.
As the petitioner impliedly concedes, the order of the trial court is not an appealable non-final order. The fund is still held in trust by the respondent, awaiting an order determining the right to possession. See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) (non-final order which determines the right to immediate possession of property is reviewable by appeal). Further, the trial court must still decide whether the fund has been converted.1 See Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974) (where two claims are legally interrelated and involve the same transaction, a review will not be permitted as to the dismissal of one of the claims), and Aero Int’l Corp. v. Florida Nat’l Bank, 437 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (funds held in a trust account may be the subject of an action for conversion), rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1984).
Neither is the order reviewable by certiorari because no irreparable harm, nor an inadequacy of legal remedies, has been demonstrated. See Ovadia v. Doctors’ Hosp. of South Miami, Ltd., 557 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (appellate court has no jurisdiction to review an order dismissing a complaint on a petition for writ of certiorari where the petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal from the final order or final judgment when entered).
Certiorari denied.
. Chapter 5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar provides in pertinent part:
Rule 5-1.1 TRUST ACCOUNTS
Money or other property entrusted to an attorney for a specific purpose, including advances for costs and expenses, is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose.
Money and other property of clients coming into the hands of an attorney are not subject to counterclaim or setoff for attorney fees, and a refusal to account for and deliver over such property upon demand shall be deemed a conversion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph P. Testa and his wife v. S. Escrow & Title, LLC, 983 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Marin v. Batista, 590 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). BROWNING, C.J., LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Roysdon v. State, 437 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Joseph Ovadia, M.D. v. Doctors' Hosp. OF S. Miami, Ltd., 557 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)