Bloomgarden v. Mandel
154 So. 3d 451
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Charles and Joan Bloomgarden hired attorney Anthony Lanza under a contingent hybrid fee agreement ($175/hr + 15% of recovery) to bring a legal malpractice action against Roberta Mandel and her former firm HHA regarding work for their son Howard.
- Discovery raised attorney-client privilege issues because Howard (criminal defendant in California) would not waive privilege; Lanza advised staying malpractice litigation until Howard’s criminal case concluded; the Bloomgardens insisted on proceeding to obtain funds for Howard’s defense.
- Lanza withdrew in 2009 citing irreconcilable differences and unpaid fees; the trial court allowed withdrawal but did not address a charging lien Lanza later filed based on the Fee Contract.
- The Bloomgardens retained new counsel, dismissed claims against Mandel, and settled with HHA for $75,000; HHA conditioned payment on resolution of Lanza’s asserted charging lien.
- The Bloomgardens moved in 2013 to cancel Lanza’s charging lien, alleging malpractice by Lanza, voluntary withdrawal forfeiting fees (Faro), lack of contribution to the settlement, and statute of limitations on the fee contract; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied cancellation but did not quantify the lien.
- The Bloomgardens appealed; the appellate court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as the order denying cancellation was neither final, an appealable non-final order determining immediate possession, nor certiorari-worthy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order denying cancellation of Lanza’s charging lien is a final appealable order | Bloomgarden: Denial effectively determines rights to the settlement proceeds and ends dispute | Lanza: Amount of lien remains undetermined; further proceedings required | Not final — more judicial labor needed to quantify lien |
| Whether the order is an appealable non-final order determining right to immediate possession of property | Bloomgarden: Denial blocks receipt of $75,000; thus it affects immediate possession | Lanza: Order adjudicated lien validity, not immediate possession | Not appealable as non-final possession order |
| Whether the order departs from essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm warranting certiorari | Bloomgarden: Denial causes irreparable harm (delay, inability to fund defense) | Lanza: No irreparable harm shown; error could be remedied on plenary appeal | Not certiorari-worthy — no irreparable harm or due process defects shown |
| Whether Lanza’s charging lien is defeated by alleged malpractice/voluntary withdrawal/statute of limitations | Bloomgarden: Lanza committed malpractice; voluntarily withdrew (Faro); contract time-barred | Lanza: Lien valid under Fee Contract; entitlement and amount to be determined later | Trial court denied cancellation; appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review that denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc., 908 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (appellate courts must independently assess jurisdiction)
- Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finality test: end of judicial labor)
- Easley, McCaleb & Stallings, Ltd. v. Gibbons, 667 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (orders granting fee entitlement without fixing amount are not final)
- Smith & Burnetti, P.A. v. Faulk, 677 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court must later determine reasonable fee/amount of lien)
- Collier v. Bohnet, 966 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (attorney fees awarded should not exceed original fee contract)
- Greene v. Borsky, 961 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (circumstances where orders determining possession of money are appealable)
- Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (distinguishing lien validity adjudication from orders determining immediate possession)
- Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (certiorari requires departure from essential requirements of law causing irreparable harm)
- Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (certiorari appropriate where trial court denied due process in quashing attorney liens)
- Faro v. Romani, 641 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1994) (principles regarding forfeiture of fees on voluntary withdrawal)