ANGEL GONZALEZ
v.
JUDE FACCIDOMO
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.
The court affirmed dismissal of a complaint seeking a refund of legal fees because the plaintiff sued the individual attorney rather than the law firm that received the payments.
A complaint for refund of legal fees must be brought against the law firm that received the payments, not against an individual attorney partner.
[1] A complaint for refund of attorney fees must name the law firm as defendant where the fee receipts show payments were made to the firm rather than to an individual attorn…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzalez paid a law firm $7,500 as a retainer for post-conviction representation of his nephew and later demanded a $5,000 refund. The receipts showed…
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 Proper Party Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angel Gonzalez, pro se, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against Jude Faccidomo, Esquire seeking a refund of a retainer. Gonzalez contracted with Faccidomo’s law firm, Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC, to provide post-conviction legal representation to his nephew for $12,500. Mr. Gonzalez paid the firm $7,500 to begin representation, but later demanded a refund of $5,000. When the firm refused, Mr. Gonzalez filed the complaint at issue against Mr. Faccidomo.
Attached to the complaint are (1) alleged receipts from the law firm; and (2) an unsigned copy of an alleged contract presented by Mr. Faccidomo to Mr. Gonzalez containing a non-refundable fee clause. Mr. Faccidomo moved to dismiss arguing both that Mr. Gonzalez’s complaint incorrectly listed Mr. Faccidomo individually as a defendant instead of his law firm, and that the contract incorporated into the complaint conclusively established that the fees were non-refundable. Mr. Gonzalez countered that he never signed the agreement. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the first ground. The receipts attached to the complaint indicate that the fee payments were made to the law firm Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC, and not to Mr. Faccidomo individually. Any claim for a refund is properly against the firm and not Mr.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braznell v. Braznell, 140 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1939)…eiziberg v. Feizrberg, 70 N. J. Eq. 420, 62 Atl. Rep. 562, and available, aznozrg other things, for the correction of error apparent on the face of the [*196] record and for the purpose of introducing newly discovered evidence. Richmond v. Richmond, 62 W. Va. 206, 57 S. E. Rep. 736; Kooman’s Fla. Chancery Pleading and Practice, p. 368. It is for the latter purpose that appellant resorted to them in the instant case. Considering the function of motions for new trial and for rehearing on the ground of evidenc…