MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS

IN THE CIRCUIT COUT FOR THESEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INAND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,FLORIDACASE NO: CACE -21-021315 Division 3

BEHAR, GUTT, & GLAZER, PA.,

a Florida professional association,

Plaintiff,

JOSEPH MABE and

MERRILEE ZAWADZKI

Defendant(s)

__________________________________________

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS

Now Comes the Defendants, JOSEPH MABE and MERRILEE ZAWADZKI, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190 and files this Motion to Amend the Pleadings. Defendants seek to correct any of the perceived deficiencies noted in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim, without the expense and waste of time spent litigating the issues raised by the said Motion. Defendant Joseph Mabe has filed a Motion to Remove his pleadings. That notwithstanding, Defendant Merrilee Zawadzki files this Motion with both Defendants Captioned until the Court issues a further ruling on Defendant Mabe’s Motion.

The substance of this action began when the Defendants retained the Plaintiff to represent Defendants in a matter with the Villas of Windmill Point Property Owners Association. A Retainer Agreement was entered to that effect.
During the proceeding at the case, the Plaintiff failed to meet the expectations of the Defendants as per the Retainer Agreement, which led to contentions about the payment for the Plaintiff. This contention led to the instant case filed on December 12, 2021, which case the Plaintiff filed against the Defendants to attempt to obtain money, which they (Plaintiff) are not entitled to.
Accordingly, on or about December 29, 2021, the Defendants filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, Motion to Strike Scandalous Matters, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, and Motion for More Definite Statement.
Defendants, in addition to filing a Response to the said Plaintiff’s Motion, hereby file this Motion for Leave to Amend the Answer and Counterclaim.
Under Florida law, leave of court to file an amended pleading shall be given freely when justice requires. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a); See also Hutson v. Plantation Open MRI, LLC,66 So. 3d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) provides that leave to amend shall be given freely when justice so requires”). Absent exceptional circumstances, motions for leave to amend pleadings should be granted. Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Further, refusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abused; or amendment would be futile.” See Thompson. at 1044-45. “The primary consideration in determining whether a motion for leave to amend should be granted is a test of prejudice. . . .” Id.
Courts are directed to be “liberal in permitting” a motion for leave to amend, made at or before a motion for summary judgment. See Saidi v. Saqr, 207 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Dimick v. Ray, 774 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Thompson v. Bank of New York, 862 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Cobbum v. Citi Mortgage, Inc., 158 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Accordingly, motions for leave to amend at this stage in litigation will almost always be granted by the court in its discretion.
Moreover, “the decision to grant leave to amend rests upon the trial court’s discretion, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the amendment.” Overnight Success Constr., Inc. v. Pavarini Constr. Co., Inc., 955 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). “However, the trial court’s discretion should be exercised in accordance with the public policy of this state to freely allow amendments so that cases may be resolved on their merits.” Dausman v. Hillsborough Area Reg. Transit, 898 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
The Court to consider three factors in determining whether to grant leave to amend: (1) whether the opposing party will be prejudiced if the amendment is permitted; (2) whether the party seeking leave to amend is abusing the process or privilege; and (3) whether the amendment is futile. See Life Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Horal, 667 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
The Opposing Party will not be prejudiced if the Amendment is Permitted
Courts grant Motions to Amend where there is no prejudice to the other party in the case that could rise to the level required to prevent the amending party from amending his pleading. Carter v. Ferrell, 666 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995),
light of the foregoing, Defendants aver that first, no party will be prejudiced by the granting of this Motion. This case is set for trial in March, which is about one month away. Defendants are therefore entitled to amend their Answer and Counterclaim. See Carter v. Ferrell, 666 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995).

There is no abuse of the privilege to amend.
Florida courts may deny the party the right to amend in the case of numerous amendments to the complaint regarding the same cause of action. See Feigin v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc., 569 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1990) (affirming the trial court’s decision to deny amendment for the seventh time).
In the instant action, Plaintiff cannot claim any surprise caused by the proposed amendment because the Amended Answer and Counterclaim features the same basic parties, issues, and facts already at issue in this lawsuit.
The Amendments proposed by the Defendant are not futile.
Defendants further aver that the proposed amendment would not be futile. An amendment is futile when the proposed amendment would not state a cause of action. See PNC Bank, N.A. v. Progressive Employer Servs. II, 55 So. 3d 655, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011);see also Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat’l Bank, 21 So.3d 883, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In the instant action, Defendants maintain that the proposed amendments are not insufficient as a matter of law and do not fail to state a cause of action. Primarily, these amendments buttress already sound factual allegations and legal claims asserted against the Plaintiff (in the counterclaim), and therefore should correct any of the perceived deficiencies noted in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim, without the expense and waste of time spent litigating the issues raised by the said Motion. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Counterclaim raises the following causes of action: Breach of Contract, Violations of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Legal Malpractice, Fraud, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm.
Accordingly, Defendants request that this Court grant them leave to file their Amended Answer and Counterclaim, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and enter an Order deeming the attached Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request that this Court enter an Order granting Defendants’ leave to file their Amended Answer and Counterclaim, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A;” deeming the attached Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed, and granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: ____________

Respectfully submitted, /s/MerrileeZawadzki MerrileeZawadzki 101 S. Union Street, Ste. 106 Plymouth, MI48170 Respectfully submitted, /s/Joseph Mabe Joseph Mabe 174 SW Colesbury Avenue Port St. Lucie, FL34953

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via the indicated method on this ______ day of January, 2022 on the following parties:

Via Florida E-portal

BEHAR, GUTT & GLAZER, P.A.

IRA GUTT, ESQ.

STACEY L. GLADDING, ESQ.

DCOTA A-350

1855 GRIFFIN ROAD

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL33004

E-mail: collections@bgglaw.com

igutt@bgglaw.com

sgladding@bgglaw.com

/s/MerrileeZawadzki

/s/Joseph Mabe

EXHIBIT A

AMMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM


	IN THE CIRCUIT COUT FOR THESEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INAND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,FLORIDACASE NO: CACE -21-021315 Division 3

BEHAR, GUTT, & GLAZER, PA.,

a Florida professional association,

Plaintiff,

JOSEPH MABE and

MERRILEE ZAWADZKI

Defendant(s)

__________________________________________

AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTER CLAIM

COME NOW, the Defendants, MERRILEE ZAWADZKI (“Defendant” or “Zawadzki”)and the defendant, JOSEPH MABE (“Defendant” or Mabe”), (together “Defendants”) appearing pro se, and files this Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant Joseph Mabe has filed a Motion to Remove his pleadings. That notwithstanding, Defendant Merrilee Zawadzki files this Motion with both Defendants Captioned until the Court issues a further ruling on Defendant Mabe’s Motion. Accordingly, Defendants state, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Admit the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint to the extent it purports to be an action for damages.
Defendants aver that Paragraph 2 of the Complaint contains information unknown to the Defendants, and is therefore denied.
Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint that MERRILEE ZAWADZKI is a resident of Wayne County, but deny she is sui juris, as she has a power of attorney used in the underlying case.
Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint that JOSEPH MABE is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida and is sui juris.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and demand strict proof of the averments thereof. Defendants state that the underlying dispute involved bankruptcy proceedings for Villas of Windmill Point II Property Owners Association, Inc., which is located in Port St Lucie, Florida. While the bankruptcy proceedings were before the U.S. Bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida and the plaintiff’s place of business is in Broward County Florida, this is a dispute that involves Port Saint Lucie, Florida and was litigated from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of Florida. West Palm Beach Division. Besides, Defendant Mabe lives in Port St. Lucie and Defendant Zawadzki owns property at the property in the same location in Port St Lucie that the bankruptcy proceedings were based on. Therefore, Defendants challenge the venue of this claim and aver that the Plaintiff filed the case at the wrong venue.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Defendants agree in part and deny in part, the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. It is Admitted that BEHAR, GUTT, & GLAZER, P.A. (“BGG”) and the Defendants entered into an agreement with BBG and agreed to an hourly rate. It is denied that the legal services agreed upon were performed. And admit what purports to be a copy of the Agreement. we were not going to attach it here, wanted make sure it wasn’t bold to look like an attachment and I believe by florida law we need to attach it to our claim for breach of contract. [pc1] Do you Agree so that we have a clear basis for brining the claim?
Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint but dispute the amount of said invoices and how timely they were filed.
Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint in part and denies them in part. Defendants agree that BGG preformed ongoing services. However, they deny that there was no objection. See attached. (Exhibit “A”). I still question this. [pc2] Although a pleading , I believe responses(answers) are handeled differently and can be grounds to stike my claims. I sent floridas rule on this. Im not stating your wrong however I want to be certain. Too many mistakes by a pro se Defendant is worth the caustion.
Defendants admit in part and deny in part the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that an order granting Expedited motion was issued. However, they deny that it was (ECF 560) and deny that it was entered on October 24, 2021.
Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint as to the amount deposited into the trust account.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
Defendants aver that there is insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint that the Plaintiff provided a notice to the Defendants.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

COUNT 1

FORECLOSURE OF ATTORNEY CHARGING LIENS

Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint that this purports to be an action for damages.
Defendants admit and deny the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that an agreement was entered into. However, they deny that the length of time for performing the services was part of the agreement.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

COUNT II

FORECLOSURE OF ATTORNEY RETANING LIEN

Defendants admit the contents of paragraph 24 of the Complaint that this purports to be an action for damages.
Defendants admit and deny the contents of paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that an agreement was entered into. However, they deny that the length of time for performing the services of the agreement.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.

COUNT III

BREECH OF CONTRACT

Defendants admit the contents of paragraph 30 of the Complaint to the extent that what appears to be a copy of a retainer agreement is attached. Defendants aver that there is insufficient information to respond to rest of the allegations therein.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

COUNT IV

OPEN ACCOUNT

Defendants aver that there is insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

COUNT V

ACCOUNT STATED

Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint to the extent that before this action there were business transactions. However, the Defendants deny the resulting balances.
Defendants admit in part the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint to the extent that statements were sent. However, the Defendants aver that there is insufficient information to respond to rest of the allegations therein.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.

COUNT VI

SERVICES RENDERED/ QUANTUM MERUIT

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

COUNT VII

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER CLAIMS

The Complaint (Complaint”) in this matter was filed by BEHAR, GUTT & GLAZER,P.A. (The “Plaintiff”, “Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant” or “BGG” or “Mr. Behar”), on December 1, 2021.
In this matter, MERRILEE ZAWADZKI (“the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff” or “Ms. Zawadzki”) and JOSEPH MABE (the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff” or “Mr. Mabe”) (collectively the “Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs”) on or about February 10, 2021 entered into an agreement for legal services that was reduced to a Retainer Agreement with Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Said Retainer is attached as an exhibit to the Complaint. Exhibit “B”. Do we need to attach the complaint [pc3] here?
Defendant/Counter Plaintiffs paid a consultation fee of $800.00 on or about February 2, 2021 to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to review documents and Evidence and discuss Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs objectives involving a matter with Villas of Windmill Point II Property Owners Association (“the Villas”). The meeting lasted just over 3 hours.
The documents and evidence was dropped off at Mr. Behar’s office. Later, on or about February 10 2021, a Retainer fee of $5000.00 was paid to Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
There is nothing in the Retainer Agreement that allows the Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant to deduct amounts that are alleged to be due under the Retainer Agreement, from amounts that are deposited into the Trust Account in the Villas Bankruptcy.
As it relates to the Villas Bankruptcy, there were multiple payments that were made to BGG in excess of $60,000. However there were on going disputes and concerns about the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s Objectives and the excessive billing. Defendants made both verbal and written concerns about the fees. Exhibit “C” shows emails between the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant as it relates to the scope of the litigation and the billing.
Funds were placed into Mr. Behar’s Trust Account in the amount of $17,500 for Mr. Mabe and $17,500 for Ms. Zawadzki.
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement, which provided that the funds be placed into the account of BGG. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs did not give an option as to the disbursement of these funds. The Settlement Agreement was not entered into voluntarily.
On August 17, 2021, the Bankruptcy Judge Paul G. Hyman held a Settlement Conference. Mr. Behar was in attendance for part of the conference where some issues were discussed with Defendants. After that, Mr. Behar left to attend a funeral. Once Mr. Behar left, additional settlement negations took places that were not shared with Defendants. Mr. Behar made no arrangements to continue so his clients could participate in the negotiations. Further, he made no arrangements to ensure his clients would be fully represented in this matter. It was a global agreement that involved all parties. It follows; Defendants were not involved in such negations, which ought to include all parties. The Agreement was entered without the input, consent and/or approval of the Defendants. Defendants only learned that such negotiations took place after the fact. The trustee threatened to file (and later filed) a motion to force the agreement when Defendants were still negotiating a settlement and asked Mr. Behar to object to as there was no settlement that all parties had agreed to. At this same meeting, Judge Hyman scheduled a follow up conference for October 1^st as there was an original conflict for the 4th and 5th. as there was not an agreement reached that date.
DefendantDefendantDefendant
Besides, Mr. Behar did not also participate since he was away for the funeral. Consequently, on August 25, 2021, a Motion in part to allow claims for voting purposes was filed. (Docket 539). Exhibit “D”. The Defendants severally asked Mr. Behar to object to the said Motion, but he did not object. It is also worth noting that later, when the Defendants were reviewing the record, they observed that the document was drafted as if there was only one party in attendance. Instead, Mabe and Zawadzki through her power of attorney were in attendance. The Plaintiff also failed to object to page 5 of the Motion, which stated that he did not participate in the final numbers, when he did not participate in the negotiations at all. Question. Although we are stating the facts in our allegations are they not suppose to be short consise statements? I added the above to claify for you the facts for you to restate- not to add all the words, but only for explaintation so we can be accurate [pc4]
Further, on September 17, 2021, the Trustee filed a Motion to Enforce the Agreement. Again, Defendants asked Plaintiff (both verbally and by email) to object to the Motion, on the ground that all parties did not participate in the Agreement. Exhibit “E”.
As to the Settlement; there was no global agreement consented to, or signed by all Parties on September 17, 2021.
Mr. Behar states, that an Order granting motion (EFC 560) “was granted on October 24, 2021. This is not true. (ECF 560) was docketed on September 17, 2021.The Motion was approved on September 29, 2021 and (EFC 585) was signed on October 1, 2021 and entered on October 4, 2021 (Exhibit F).
Proceeds totaling $35,000 from the settlement were never dispersed to Ms. Zawadzki or Mr. Mabe.
Throughout the Villas bankruptcy, BGG: refused to file a pleading to seek a dismissal of the entire bankruptcy case; fought off numerous requests to seek an evidentiary hearing to submit evidence to the Court; and refused to object to various motions, or to join or file a proper lawsuit as requested by Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. Exhibit “G” is one example of these requests.note: eventually there was a request for an evidentiary hearing based on a particular topic so I want to make sure we don’t state something that can bakfore abouthe evidentiary hearing becaseuhe could hsow there was a rquest looking for opinion here also some of our allegations were verbal [pc5] how do we support those.?
On Mr. Behar’s initial meeting with Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki’s representative, he spent in excess of 3 hours looking through Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Evidence and Documents. He shared with Mabe and Zawadzki that he had been a lawyer for over 40 years of relevant experience. He further stated that he was familiar with Chapter 7, Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcies and made it clear he was a litigator.
On July 20, 2021, Defendants Counter-Plaintiffs were discussing objections to a motion being held the next day in regards to a confirmation set for July 21, 2021. Defendants/counter Plaintiffs had previously asked Mr. Behar to file an Objection to that Motion, which Objection did not get filed. The Plaintiff refused to file pleadings upon numerous request to submit evidence and to object to motion. Accordingly, Mr. Behar was thwarting the efforts and refusing to submit the information and the evidence. On that day, Mr. Behar informed us his wife was diagnosed with COVID so he had to cancel our discussions and continue the hearing. This Objection and the evidence never got heard, to the detriment of the Defendants/Counter –Plaintiffs. Exhibit “H”. (Court Docket # 505). ).
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs presented evidence of bad faith on multiple occasions and requested Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant file a motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant failed to file such motion. Exhibit “I” there are numerous documents if we include the evidence can they argue that we are making a legal conclusion/ do we need to state this differently?[pc6]
It should be noted that the Trustee falsely represented to the bankruptcy Court that there was a Settlement Agreement, even before the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff had ever agreed to it. In essence, no agreement existed since not all of the parties participated in the alleged agreement. Therefore, Defendants aver that no agreement existed at the time the motion was filed on September17, 2021. The Plaintiff refused to Object to the filing of the motion and did not respond to emails sent to him about it. (Exhibit “J”) we are making a statement aobut the trustee that is true. Is there any reason I need to be careful with how its stated as we are not suing the trustee but making serious claims(that are true about the trustee so that we don’t have an issue – lookingyou’re your opinion here or a way to state the facts differently[pc7]
There never should have been an Expedited Motion to Approve a Settlement as parties were still negotiating. Defendants made numerous requests both verbal and in emails, for the Plaintiff to object to the Expedited Motion.(Exhibit “J”).
The Plaintiff/Counter-Plaintiff did not have the consent from the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs to settle. Defendants made communications both verbally and in Email, which showed they were to be the ones that decided all the issues. (Exhibit “J”). most of our evidence showes that we do not agree the request for deciding on issues were mostly verbal ant there were 2 03 3 in writing I have not found yet so I want to stress more on our evidence telling him there is not agreement.[pc8] DefendantDefendant
Accordingly, Defendants had not agreed on a settlement. Instead, Defendants were coerced into the Agreement. They did not settle on their own accord. They were under duress, and were financially threatened. At the same time, the legal billing was extremely exaggerated and was not reflective of the services the defendants requested. Notably, the Plaintiff told the Defendants that they would not represent them if they did not sign the agreement. The Plaintiff would not represent the Defendants in the continued proceeds which would have been an evdentiary hearing where all of the evidence that had been suppressed by the Plaintiff would be exposed.
Defendants made payments to the Plaintiff on a monthly basis. As it has already been observed hereinabove, the billing was extremely excessive and not reflective of what was agreed upon. The billing was not reflective of the services the Defendants told him they wanted. Notably, the way the billing was written did not reflect the amount the parties agreed or the rate thereof.

I think fraud used as a defense helps to defeat his claims . I think it can be used as a counter claim as well but it must be please specifally and provable I also we have a few instances of fraud can they be combined/[pc9]

Plaintiff has been paid over $60,000 by Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki and misappropriated the $35,000 from the Settlement agreement, which was entered under duress and undue influence. The Plaintiff then filed the instant lawsuit on December 1, 2021 and had it served on Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki a few days before the holidays, likely hoping to get a Default judgment.
It is worth noting that no legal work was undertaken by the Plaintiff that justifies the $95,000 in legal fees that they are seeking. Plaintiff has already been paid $60,000, and added $35,000 from the Settlement.
Mr. Mabe and Mr. Zawadzki were to receive the names of the new owners of the Villas as one of the terms of the Settlement agreement. Notably, the Plaintiff assured Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs they would get the names immediately upon signing. The Plaintiff further told Mabe and Zawadzki they had to sign the Settlement agreement before they could get the names. Mabe and Zawadzki did not want to sign the agreement because, among other unresolved issues, there was no assurance that they would receive the names and it was not in their best interest. The Defendants eventually signed based on Mr. Behar’s representations .
As part of the settlement agreement a confidentiality agreement was required to be signed prior to giving the names. Mr. Behar had asked A/C Villas on a couple of occasions for the names. The Defendants therefore reasonably believed they would get the names, following the Plaintiff’s representations. Accordingly, Mabe and Zawadzki continually asked Mr. Behar for this agreement. He failed to provide it. Mr. Behar continued to assure Defendants the names would be provided upon signing. Consequently, the confidentiality agreement was never provided for review prior to court’s approval of the Settlement agreement despite Behars repeated representaions. Exhibit “K”.
As the day approached for the expedited hearing to enforce the Settlement Agreement, Mabe and Zawadzki again set forth that they were promised the names of the owners. Mr. Behar made the representation that the names would be provided upon signing the settlement agreement.
Notably, Mr. Behar sent an email requesting the names and received a response they had to have the stipulation signed first. Mr. Behar shared this email and reiterated that “as soon as you sign you will get the names.” Defendants/Counter plaintiffs relied on those representations made by Mr. Behar. Mr. Behar continued to pressure Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs into signing the Settlement Agreement. Under extreme pressure and duress Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs signed so that they could get names prior to the Expedited hearing.
The foregoing notwithstanding, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs never received the names or the Confidentiality agreement. They were unfairly deceived, misled and pressured by the improper motion, which was expedited to force a Settlement that Mr. Behar refused to object to. Exhibit “J”.
Further, the Plaintiff did not object to the approval of the agreement without the production of the names requested by Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff. This happened despite a signed agreement to give the Defendants the names subject to a signed confidentiality agreement. Such agreement was never presented to prior to court approval which was also not objected to.[pc10]
The Plaintiff did not also object to an erroneous item added to the Court order (docket #586) giving an extra 14 days to produce the Names. The additional 14 days was not mentioned in the court hearing and can be verified in the court transcript of September 29, 2021. Exhibit “L”(the transcript)and Exhibit “M” (the Court Order).
Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki further asked the Plaintiff to request on numerous occasions from the Bankruptcy court, recovery of statutory damages under Fla. Stat. 720.303. Essentially, Defendants were asking Plaintiff to request recovery from the court. However the Plaintiff failed to diligently pursue the recovery of these damages to the detriment the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. The same Court awarded creditors in this same bankruptcy action over $245,000, based on the same statute.
Fla. 720.313 5(b) Production of records specifically states in pertinent part thus:

A member who is denied access to official records is entitled to the actual damages or minimum damages for the association’s willful failure to comply with this subsection. The minimum damages are to be $50 per calendar day up to 10 days, the calculation to begin on the 11th business day after receipt of the written request.

This request was made numerous times to the Trustee in the Bankruptcy case and was denied the official records in each request. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs requested on numerous occasions that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant properly request recovery pursuant to Defendants request. Plaintiff did not properly pursue recovery to the Defendants/Counter –Plaintiff’s determent
On or about May 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an erroneous motion for the production of Documents. Consequently, when this was heard on or about June 29, 2021, the Judge told Mr. Behar that with his years of experience, a 2004 examination was not the proper request, and that he should have known better. The Judge then told him to do the proper request of subpoenas.. The Defendants were charged for this wrong filing including for wasting the court time. The Petitioner also included the costs for work leading to the motion, in the fees. Exhibit “N”. before I include this exhibit I will need to review the bills there maay be many entires. Is there a way to reference this without an exhibit or do you think this is an important one[pc11]
The Plaintiff took additional time to issue such subpoenas and upon attempting to do so was told by the subpoenaed Counsel that his client would not be available for 60 days. During this time, the Property in question in the Bankruptcy was sold creating a very costly controversial and costly sale to the Estate. Thus changing the direction of the case to the detriment of the defendants.
No legal work that was undertaken by the Plaintiff that justifies the $95,000 that was already paid. The Plaintiff already has in excess of $60,000 and is in possession of the $35,000 that he is seeking in this action.
Further, the Plaintiff did not request a charging lien or a retaining lien prior to withdrawing from the Bankruptcy case where the fees he is claiming originated from and therefore is not entitled to such Liens.
Plaintiff avers that the money was removed from the jurisdiction of the Court that presided over the subject matter of the case without noticing the court of such liens, rendering the liens unenforceable. Besides, the Plaintiff did not reserve jurisdiction with the bankruptcy court to consider a charging lien before accepting the money and withdrawing from the case.
The Plaintiff is not entitled to foreclose on the funds in trust that were not earned or were derived by improper conduct. Pursuant to American Bar Association Rule 1.5; attempts to collect unreasonable fees are improper when derived by improper Conduct as well as Florida’s Rule 4-1.5 (a), which prohibits illegal, prohibited, or Clearly Excessive Fees and Costs. Accordingly, the fees charged by the Plaintiff were not reasonable, were not necessary for the request Defendants Retained the Plaintiff for and were derived in an unethical manner. In addition this was not a contingency case as asserted by Plaintiff’s claim of quantum meruit as if a contingency case. A contingency never arose since the attorney found a way to bill and to take all of the proceeds of the settlement by unnecessary and repetitive work to appear as a justification for excessive bills.
Defendants further aver that the Plaintiff failed to correct the improper settlement Agreement ratified on August 17^th. It is worth noting that no Agreement existed until the final party emailed a copy of the signed Agreement dated September 24, 2021. However, the Plaintiff did not present the September 24^th Agreement to anyone. He was aware as he received it personally by email 10 full days after the Trustee filed court docket number 560, which inaccurately stated the agreement andfurther stated, erroneously, that an agreement was reached at a judicial settlement conference on August17, 2021.It is worth noting that this was a global agreement based on all topics and that the negations continued after that particular meeting that Mr. Behar left early.It should also be noted that Mr. Behar did not address this untrue statement as well. Further, Mr. Behar was also aware when court document #572 was filed on 9/28/21, which states on page 4: “THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMNT(“Agreement”) is entered into on this 17 th day of September, 2021 by and between i)Leslie S Osborn, solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee herein: ii) George Santulli(“Santulli”), iii) Carlo Patti (“Patti”), iv) AC Villas”) , v) Joseph Mabe (“Mabe”) andvi) MerrileeZawadzki (“Zawadzki”), (collectively the “Parties”). Plaintiff was aware this was not accurate because at least 1 of his clients had not agreed or signed until 10days later when he received their email on September 27, 2021.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 1

(FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION)

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff is not entitled to the money they seek in the Complaint. Notably, they violated Florida rules of professional conduct (“FRCP”) 4-1.2 by failing to abide by the client’s decisions. For instance, the Defendants provided Mr. Behar with evidence and asked him to file a claim, and get the evidence in front of the judge. Mr. Behar failed to follow Defendants’ instructions. Mr. Barr also failed to plead Defendants’ legitimate bad faith concerns, and instead intimidated Defendants that they did not know about the bad faith claim.
On the other hand, contrary to FRPC 4-1.5(1), the Plaintiff charged fees obtained by intentional misrepresentation or fraud upon the Defendants. They did this unconscionably. For instance, in one particular month, nothing was literally done in the case except a hearing that lasted about 2 hours and a 1 hour meeting. The Plaintiff decided he needed to review document that he previously had, and charged about $16,000 for that month.
Also, contrary to FRCP 4-8.4(c), the Plaintiff engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. For instance, when seeking the names of the new owners of the association, Mr. Behar reiterated that “as soon as you sign you will get the names.” Defendants relied on those representations made by Mr. Behar, and approved the Agreement. However, the Defendants never received the names or the Confidentiality agreement.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 2

(UNCLEAN HANDS)

Defendants invoke the Doctrine of Unclean Hands and allege that the Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.
The Plaintiff’s conduct was unfair and not in good faith when they failed to provide the service Defendants asked for. Notably, they acted without Defendants’ consent, failed to follow Defendants’ instructions, failed to make requested objections of material nature.
For instance, on September 17, the trustee in the bankruptcy case filed an expedited motion to enforce the agreement that did not exist. All parties had not agreed. That notwithstanding, the Plaintiff insisted, falsely, that Defendants had consented to the Agreement. It is clear that the Plaintiff settled the agreement without the consent of the Defendants. This can be seen from the fact that he failed to object to the Expedited Motion. It can also be seen from the motion to approve the agreement or assure clients were represented at the settlement hearing. ( if we don’t mediton all the instances does it matter? Or is less better [pc12]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 3

(VENUE IS NOT PROPER IN BROWARD COUNTY)

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §47.011, “[a]ctions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents.”
In this matter the Villa Bankruptcy case involved an association located in Port Saint Lucie, County, Florida, and was litigated before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division. The Defendants live in Port St Lucie County and both the properties owned by the Defendants are in Port St. Lucie County.
This matter should therefore have been filed in Port Saint Lucie County, Florida or Palm Beach County, Florida and the Defendants intend to file a Motion for Change of Venue in that regard.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 4

(FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)

The Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages in this matter.
At all times material herein, Plaintiff failed and neglected to mitigate damages so as to reduce and or diminish his claim. Notably, the Plaintiff had an obligation to abide by the dictates of the rules of professional conduct, which Plaintiff was subjected to. For instance, Plaintiff ought to abide by Florida Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-1.3 provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Instead, Plaintiff further carried out blatant violations of the said rules, as already alleged hereinabove.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 5

(FAILURE TO ABIDE BY CLIENT’S DECISIONS)

The Plaintiff failed to abide by client’s decisions, and thus violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.2, which requires that a lawyer must abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and reasonably consult with the client as to the means that they are to be pursued and abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.
The Defendants provided Mr. Behar with evidence and asked him to file a claim, and get the evidence in front of the judge. Mr. Behar failed to follow Defendants’ instructions. Mr. Barr also failed to plead Defendants’ legitimate bad faith concerns, and instead intimidated Defendants that they did not know about the bad faith claim. The bad faith claims were enough for dismissal of the case if properly and timely asserted . do I need to allege this becase they were not presented or tried. Although the evidence was strog enough make the bankrruptchy not confirmable therefore very likelty to have dismissed the case. DOES THIS NEED TO BE SAID ANOTHER WAY OR AS A DEFENCE ? OR COUNTER CLAIM [pc13]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 6

(CHARGING A CLEARLY EXCESSIVE FEE AND COSTS)

Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.5, provides that a lawyer may not charge a clearly excessive fee or costs.
The Plaintiff failed to abide by the Defendants’ decisions, and was therefore not entitled to the amount of fees they claimed. The Plaintiff now demands the amounts from the Trust Account, after already being paid large amounts. It follows; the Plaintiff is seeking additional and clearly excessive fees or costs. Fees and cost are not reflective of what Defendants asked Plaintiff to do and were derived by improper conduct. Notably, the Plaintiff acted without Defendant’s consent, failed to plead Defendants’ legitimate bad faith concerns, and failed to make requested objections of material nature. DO I NEED TO LIST EXAMPLES OF CONDUCT HERE OR NOT BECASE IT’S A DEFENSE? INCLUING….. WRONG DISCOVER MOITON, UNECESSAR Y AND EXCESSIVE BILLING OR IS VAGUE BETTER HER [pc14]

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NUMBER 7

(DURESS)

The Defendants did not agree to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff told the Defendants that if the Settlement Agreement was not signed he would not represent them. The Defendants sent emails telling the Plaintiff that they were under duress, and that he was using undue influence to get them to sign, including telling the Defendants that the Bankruptcy Trustee is going to file a motion to enforce the settlement. Defendants told Plaintiff they can’t do that as there was no agreement. Plaintiff contended there was an agreement, however the Defendants had not given consent to Plaintiff and did not agree to the settlement. Plaintiff repeatedly called the Defendants, sent them emails and texts and increased the bill and used undue influence to obtain a signature for the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was therefore not entered into voluntarily, and it was the desire of Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki to have the funds that were paid into the Trust Account of BGG. Numerous emails were sent to the Plaintiff from Defendants noting that they were not in agreement.
Immediately, and with no approval from Mr. Mabe and Ms. Zawadzki, the Bankruptcy Trustee filed an Expedited Motion to Approve/Enforce the Settlement Agreement. Defendants requested Plaintiff to object to this motion. Plaintiff refused to object with the knowledge there was not an agreement of all parties. Trustee received an Order granting said motion.
The Plaintiff stated that an Order granting said motion (EFC 560) “was granted on October 24, 2021. However this is not true because (ECF 560) was docketed on September 17, 2021 and the Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement was approved on October 4, 2021 (EFC 586) in original complaint this was in error as 585. Exhibit “F”.
Throughout the Villa Bankruptcy case, BGG refused to file a pleading to seek a dismissal of the entire bankruptcy case and fought off numerous Defendants’ requests to seek an Evidentiary Hearing in which to submit evidence to the Bankruptcy Court. Exhibit “C”. There was a motion for one evidintary hearing regarding the issue of discovery and the bulk buyer It took Defendants months to get the Plaintiff to file this motion and it was never heard as the Plaintiff pushed the Defendants towdards settlement.

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses and claims as they become evident through discovery.

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS demand judgment against the Plaintiff as follows:

Dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety;
Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost as permitted by law, contract or applicable statute(s); and
Such further legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

COUNTERCLAIM

JURISDICTION & VENUE

This is an action for damages in excess of $30,000, exclusive or interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
Venue is not proper in this Court. In this action, the Villa Bankruptcy case involved an association located in Port Saint Lucie, County, Florida, and was litigated before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division. One of the parties to the Retainer Agreement lives in Port St Lucie County and both the properties owned by the Defendants are in Port St. Lucie County. This matter should therefore have been filed in Port Saint Lucie County, Florida or Palm Beach County, Florida and the Defendants intend to file a Motion for Change of Venue in that regard.
By filing this Counterclaim, the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs do not waive any arguments as to jurisdiction and venue, or waive the right to file a Motion For Change of Venue.
The previously set forth Statement of Facts Common to Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim are fully incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs, as through fully set forth herein and sue Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant for Breach of Contract as follows: where woul dcase law ned to be added then [pc15]
Plaintiff/Counter-Plaintiff materially breached the Retainer Agreement by failing to undertake or perform the services required thereunder and by failing to fulfill the obligations thereunder. For instance, Paragraph 1 of the Retainer Agreement provides that “Counsel will review, prepare, negotiate, and revise all documentation related to the matter.” The Defendants provided Mr. Behar with evidence and asked him to file a claim, and get the evidence in front of the judge. Mr. Behar failed to follow Defendants’ instructions. Further, Mr. Behar fought off numerous Defendants’ requests to seek an Evidentiary Hearing in which to submit evidence to the Bankruptcy Court. Altough there was a Motion filed in that regard, the Plaintiff did not properly advocate on the Defendants’ behalf. The Defendants duly fulfilled their obligations by paying the bill which was done even though they were not obgigated to pay due to the Plaintiff’s conduct. The Defendants are therefore not entitled to the money he claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint because she failed to represent Defendants in the negotiations and failed to object to the improper motions. Defendants
Paragraph 4 of the Retainer Agreement obligated the Plaintiff to keep the Defendants informed of the status of the case. The Plaintiff breached the Agreement when he consented to the settlement agreement without informing the Defendants or obtaining their consent. Plaintiff then coerced Defendants to sign.
Paragraph 4 of the Retainer also provides that the Plaintiff should maintain professional ethics and keep the confidence of the Defendants. The said paragraph also stated thus: “we want you to be satisfied with both the quality of our legal work and the reasonableness of the fees we charge for those services.” Instead, the Plaintiff breached this obligation when he lied to the Defendants. The Defendants were seeking the names of the new owners of the association. Mr. Behar reiterated that “as soon as you sign you will get the names.” The foregoing statement was verbal. Also, there were emails that had similar language stating that Defendants had to sign first. Mr. Behar knew it was imperitive to get the names before the court’s approval. Therefore, Defendants relied on those representations made by Mr. Behar, and approved the Agreement. However, the Defendants never received the names or the Confidentiality agreement.
Besides, the Plaintiff refused to file a pleading to specifically [pc16] seek a dismissal of the entire bankruptcy case and fought off numerous Defendants’ requests to seek an Evidentiary Hearing in which to submit evidence of bad faith to the Bankruptcy Court.
As a direct and proximate result of the material breach of contract, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff have incurred damages, substantially in excess of $30,000.00, which included, inter alia, direct and consequential damages.

WHEREFORE, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant breached their contractual agreement, and award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff with an amount fair and just to account for its money damages, interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs incurred herein, and for such other relief as this court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA’S UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, CHAPTER 501, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the above paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
Pursuant to § 501.204 (1), Florida Statutes, “Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful”
As set forth in the above paragraphs, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has willfully engaged in the acts and practices that amount to unfair and deceptive practices, when he knew or should have known that such acts and practices were unfair and deceptive or otherwise prohibited by law. For instance, the Plaintiff entered the Settlement Agreement without the consent of the Defendants. He also failed to file proper objections, to present evidence to the Court, and to make the filings requested by the Defendants. He also failed to fully attend the negotiations and to ensure the Defendants were properly represented. DEFENDANT
Further, the Plaintiff placed the Defendants under duress when the Plaintiff told the Defendants that if the Settlement Agreement was not signed he would not represent them. The Plaintiff insisted on the settlement Agreement even though he had not obtained the consent of the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff insisted that Defendants would face sanctions if she did not agree to the forced settlement.
The Plaintiff also lied to the Defendants when he told Defendants that he would provide the names of the new owners of the Villas as one of the terms of the Settlement agreement. However, the Plaintiff failed to provide the said names. Plaintiff was told by a third pary by email and they did not provide to him, although Defendants relied on Plaintiff’s representations she did not get the names
These above-described acts and practices of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant have injured and will likely continue to injure and prejudice the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
Pursuant to § 501.211 (2), Florida Statutes, “In any action brought by a person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of this part, such person may recover actual damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs as provided in s. 501.2105.” Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff have incurred damages substantially in excess of $30,000.00, which include, inter alia, direct and consequential damages, extra expenses, loss of profits, attorney’s fees and damages.

WHEREFORE, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant for compensatory damages substantially in excess of $30,000.00, including direct and consequential damages, extra expenses, loss of profits, attorney’s fees and damages and for temporary and injunctive relief prohibiting Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant from continuing to engage in activities against the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

COUNT III

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the above paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are: the existence of a fiduciary duty, and the breach of that duty such that it is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. SeeGracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348, 353 (Fla. 2002) and Fla. Std. J. Inst. (Civ.) 451.5
A breach of fiduciary duty can be negligent or intentional. SeePalafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Cassel, 825 So. 2d 937, 939 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
The existence of a fiduciary duty can be proven if a relationship exists between the Plaintiff and Defendant in which the Plaintiff put his/her/its trust in Defendant to protect financial or property interests, secrets, confidences or private information and Defendant accepts that trust. SeeFla. Std. J. Inst. (Civ.) 451.7
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, by and through its employees, agents, representatives and collectors owed Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff a fiduciary duty and the breach of that duty is the proximate cause of the damages of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
Under the said fiduciary duty, the Defendants trusted that the Plaintiff would carry out their obligations under the Retainer Agreement. Further, the Retainer Agreement obligated the Plaintiff to adhere and be bound to professional ethics. In paragraph 4 of the Retainer Agreement, the Plaintiff expressly stated that he will diligently keep the Defendants informed. Instead, the Plaintiff consented to a Settlement agreement without informing the Defendants or obtaining their consent. The Plaintiff also failed to fully attend the settlement conference or to provide representatiaon to Defendants in this situation. Further, the Plaintiff failed to object to erroneous additions to a court order. He also failed to object to improper Moton to approve a Settlement that was not agreed to by all parties. The Plaintiff also refused to file a pleading to seek a dismissal of the entire bankruptcy case and fought off numerous Defendants’ requests to seek an Evidentiary Hearing in which to specifically submit evidence of bad faith to the Bankruptcy Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant for compensatory damages substantially in excess of $30,000.00, including direct and consequential damages, extra expenses, loss of profits, attorney’s fees and damages, and for such other relief as this court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV

LEGAL MALPRACTICE

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs repeats and re-allege each and every allegation in the above paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
Defendants aver that punitive damages may be awarded when the conduct of the
wrongdoer is maliciously intentional, fraudulent, or committed
with a wanton disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights. They are
awarded as punishment of the offender.
Defendants further aver that where the negligent attorney’s conduct not only constituted malpractice but displayed oppression, fraud, malice or other qualifying egregious conduct on the part of the lawyer, the attorney may be directly liable to the plaintiff’s client for punitive damages (in addition to other damages) in the legal malpractice action.
This differs from the plaintiff attempting to recover “lost” punitive damages from the underlying action. Instead, this form of punitive damages is based on the attorney’s own conduct. These damages are still disfavored, however, and not available unless the negligent lawyers acts were sufficiently egregious to qualify for a punitive damages award.

Reasonable Duty

Secondly, in a malpractice claim, the Plaintiff must plead and prove neglect of a reasonable duty. As is more fully set out below, fulfillment of this duty does not require the attorney to be a predictor of the future in unsettled areas of the law, nor does it require him to inform his client of conflicting law unless the conflicting question will soon be answered by controlling authority.’ The attorney’s duty does require him to exercise good faith and to make diligent inquiry in order to be protected by judgmental immunity. A cause of action exists against an attorney who neglects to perform the services that he explicitly or impliedly agrees to when he accepts employment.

Proximate Cause of Loss

The third element that a legal malpractice Plaintiff must plead and prove is that the attorney’s negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff. The general tort law that “[n]o damages may be recovered where losses do not usually result from or could not have been foreseen as a proximate result of a particular negligence”
A proper pleading of an action against an attorney for malpractice
requires pleading more than bare legal assertions; however, even such a
complaint should not be dismissed where capable of being cured. The naked legal conclusion that an attorney was negligent will not satisfy the pleading requirements for legal malpractice. Nevertheless, as with other causes of action, a court will only examine the “four corners of the complaint” to determine if the allegations are sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
A dismissal with prejudice was affirmed in Bankers Trust Realty, Inc. v. Kluger. This harsh sanction resulted from the failure to “state any of the specifics of the alleged malpractice.”‘ The complaint merely stated the “insufficient legal conclusion that the attorneys ‘negligently, carelessly, unskillfully and tardily conducted the … action and delayed obtaining a judgment therein.”‘ However, Breakers of Ft. Lauderdale, Ltd. v. Cassel overturned a trial court ruling dismissing a complaint for legal malpractice with prejudice because the complaint, “while deficient in that it failed to establish conclusively when appellant actually knew that its attorney’s conduct constituted malpractice, was not beyond cure.”
An attorney who gives improper or erroneous advice to a client who suffers damage as a result may be subject to a malpractice action for compensatory damages. However, such negligence, if it exists, and even if gross, does not warrant an award of punitive damages absent the necessary allegations and proof of wantonness or reckless indifference. The fact that an attorney who allegedly gave bad advice had listed his name with a lawyer referral service as being proficient in that particular field of law, by itself, does not rise to the level of wantonness or reckless indifference required for punitive damages. Similarly, an attorney’s failure to file a security interest with the Secretary of State was not sufficient to warrant punitive damages in Chadwick v. Corbin. Another Florida case involving legal malpractice and punitive damages is De Pantosa Saenz v. Rigau & Rigau, P.A.539. The former client sought punitive damages, alleging fraud in the sale of certain real estate. The Court stated, “[moreover, the plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Mr. Rigau. Assuming the plaintiff can establish facts warranting punitive damages, the previously received remedy of rescission would not bar an additional award of punitive damages. Punitive damages were awarded against the attorneys in Stinson v. Feminist Women’s Health Center, Inc. The Court found that the trial judge properly awarded punitive damages since the lawyers’ behavior was “egregious,” “self-serving,” and “unconscionable. The attorney’s conduct in Medel v. Republic National Bank of Miami was determined to be an issue for trial rather than summary judgment. Applying Florida law, federal courts have also found punitive damages against attorneys to be warranted. Florida law is clear: under appropriate circumstances punitive damages can be awarded against an attorney in a malpractice proceeding.
The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was employed by the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs as their legal counsel. A Retainer Agreement was entered in that regard, which Agreement set out the obligations of both the Defendants and the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant neglected a reasonable duty owed to the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. For instance, according to Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.2, a lawyer must abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and reasonably consult with the client. However, the Plaintiff made decisions without involving the Defendants. The Plaintiff consented to a Settlement Agreement without informing (and obtaining the consent) of the Defendants.
Further, Rule 4-1.5, provides that a lawyer may not charge a clearly excessive fee or costs. However, the Plaintiff is demanding the amounts from the Trust Account, after already being paid large amounts. Besides, in one particular month, nothing was literally done in the case except a hearing that lasted about 2 hours and a 1 hour meeting. The Plaintiff decided he needed to review document that he previously had, and charged about $16,000 for that month. It is evident that the Plaintiff charged for wrong Motions filed and fabricated fees for busy work to use up all the settlement money.
It follows; the Plaintiff is seeking additional and clearly excessive fees or costs, which are not reflective of the services they offered to the Defendants.
The negligence of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was the proximate cause of the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs harm.
The Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs compensatory damages – and – to the extent applicable – special damages, include, but are not necessarily limited to: a) the loss on the Villa Bankruptcy, b) the loss of monies paid to the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, c) attorneys’ fees in defending against legal actions related to the Villa Bankruptcy and e) ongoing financial damages related to the Villa Bankruptcy.
In sum, Defendants aver that Plaintiff was negligent and/or committed malpractice and breached the duties in the following manner:
did not ensure Defendants obtained proper consideration (did not get the names prior to court approval but signed agreement under duress.
Plaintiff did object to the court approval without Defendants raising proper consideration
Plaintiff did not object to the imporoper motion to approve agreement when all parties had not agreed.
Plaintiff did not object to eronious language in the court order that was never discussed at the hearing
made agrements without the Defendants’ consent
abandoned Defendants at the settlement conference and did not protect their interest
did not ensure court pleadings properly acknowledge both Defendants in the Settlement Order.
used undue influence, excessive pressure, and financial threats to coerce Defendants to sign an agreement they did not want to sign
Plaintiff excessively billed the Defendants based on his misconduct, duplicate charges for research, billing for improperly filed Motion for discovery and billing excessive and creating busy work as a way to absorb all the settlement money of which the only person who derived a benefit was Mr. Behar.
resisted and/or refused to plead bad faith with evidence to defeat the confirmation of the bankruptcy
delayed proper discovery until assets were sold changing the entire direction of the proceedings
did not do what the Defendants wanted to do, thus keeping the case running for too long
used threats of sanctions against the Defendants by the Trustee if they didn’t comply
did not represent the Defendants’ best interests by not properly making statutory request on Defendants’ behalf for Fla. 720.
If it were not for the Plaintiff’s actions, the Plaintiff’s damages, which are the excessive unnecessary fees that were charged form Plaintiff’s misconduct would not have been charged and the Defendants would not have suffered such damages. Model rule 8.4 prohibits lawyers engaging in certain conduct incluiding dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations

WHEREFORE, the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs demand entry of a Final Judgment against the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, jointly and severally, due to legal malpractice and in that Final Judgment award the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs its compensatory damages, special damages, punitive damages (because the Plaintiff’s acts were egregious), the costs of this action, pre and post judgment interest, and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT V

FRAUD

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the above paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
In Florida, “there are four elements of fraudulent misrepresentation: ‘(1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) the representor’s knowledge that the representation is false; (3) an intention that the representation induce another to act on it; and (4) consequent injury by the party acting in reliance on the representation.’” Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 1985)). Although earlier decisions suggested otherwise, “[j]ustifiable reliance is not a necessary element of fraudulent misrepresentation.” Id.
Fraud also includes the intentional omission of a material fact. Consequently, the intentional withholding of information for the purpose of inducing action has been regarded as equivalent to a fraudulent misrepresentation. Ward v. Atl. Sec. Bank, 777 So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Solorzano v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 896 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was employed by the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs as their legal counsel.
The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant entered a Retainer Agreement with the Defendants. In paragraph 4 of the Retainer Agreement, for instance, the Plaintiff expressed their intention to be bound by Professional ethics. Further, on the said paragraph, the Plaintiff expressly stated that they would diligently ensure that the Defendants is informed of the status of the case.
The Defendants relied on the said representations knowing that the Plaintiff would abide by their obligations in the Retainer Agreement.
However, as it has already been alleged in this Counter-Claim, the Plaintiff failed to adhere to the obligations in the Retainer Agreement. Notably, on September 17, the trustee in the bankruptcy case filed an expedited motion to enforce the agreement that the Plaintiff had not agreed to. That notwithstanding, the Plaintiff insisted, falsely, that Defendants had consented to the Agreement. It is clear that the Plaintiff settled the agreement without the consent of the Defendants after placing the Defendants under duress. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware that there was no binding agreement and that he participated in the misrepresentation and failed to object that there was no valid agreement entered. Further, the Plaintiff did not protect the Defendants’ interests at the Settlement Conference when he left and the agreement was reached without the Defendants’ knowledge. The Plaintiff did not also object during the hearing and he failed to notify the court thereby. Accordingly, Defendants relied on Plaintiff’s misrepresentation and suffered harm. DEFENDANT
Interestingly, the Plaintiff now demands the amounts from the Trust Account, after already being paid large amounts. It follows; the Plaintiff is seeking additional and clearly excessive fees or costs. Fees and cost are not reflective of what Defendants asked Plaintiff to do and were derived by improper conduct.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs pray this Court finds the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, jointly and severally, liable for fraud, and in the Final Judgment award the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs compensatory damages, special damages, the costs of this action, pre and post judgment interest, and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT VI

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the above paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
The acts and conducts of the Plaintiff were extreme and outrageous. The Plaintiff intended to cause, or were in reckless disregard of the probability that his conduct would cause, emotional distress to Defendants.
The said actions and conduct did directly and proximately cause severe emotional distress to Defendants, and thereby constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others. Notably, by failing to consider the Defendants’ decisions; failing to object to improper Motions; failing to present evidence of bad faith to the Court, the Defendants were subjected to unfair trial, which caused Defendants emotional harm and distress.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs pray this Court finds the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, jointly and severally, liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and in the Final Judgment award the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs compensatory damages, special damages, the costs of this action, pre and post judgment interest, and such other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right.

DATED this ___day of January, 2022.

Respectfully submitted, /s/MerrileeZawadzki MerrileeZawadzki 101 S. Union Street, Ste. 106 Plymouth, MI48170 /s/Joseph Mabe Joseph Mabe 174 SW Colesbury Avenue Port St. Lucie, FL34953

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via the indicated method on this ______ day of January, 2022 on the following parties:

Via Florida E-portal

BEHAR, GUTT & GLAZER, P.A.

IRA GUTT, ESQ.

STACEY L. GLADDING, ESQ.

DCOTA A-350

1855 GRIFFIN ROAD

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL33004

E-mail: collections@bgglaw.com

igutt@bgglaw.com

sgladding@bgglaw.com

/s/MerrileeZawadzki

/s/Joseph Mabe

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “B”

EXHIBIT “C”

EXHIBIT “D”

EXHIBIT “E”

EXHIBIT “F”

EXHIBIT “G”

EXHIBIT “H”

EXHIBIT “I”

EXHIBIT “J”

[pc1]You may attach it to the Breach of Contract Claim.

[pc2]If you question it then do what you feel is right. But I have told you what the law provides about it.

[pc3]Attach the Retainer Agreement.

Please note, all your Exhibits are arranged from A, whether you are attaching document that belong to you or to the Plaintiff.

[pc4]They are okay.

[pc5]You are the one who knows which allegations are verbal Find them and remove the reference to Evidence thereof.

[pc6]This is a factual conclusion.

[pc7]This is also a factual allegation that can be supported by evidence. Therefore you have no need to worry.

[pc8]Again, you know which facts were verbally alleged. So please strike out any reference to a factual evidence that is verbal.

[pc9]The fraud claim should be presented at both the Defense and Counterclaim.

[pc10]It’s okay to add it.

[pc11]It is an important allegation that needs evidence.

[pc12]At this point, the Judge will have gone through the facts, so it is enough to state a little.

[pc13]There is no need to assert this because this case is on a totally different issue. Besides, it is the Courts that determine the success of allegations.

[pc14]Remember, the judge will have already read your allegations above. Therefore, there is no need to be wordy and re-assert the facts that already stand out above. Judges also get weary reading lengthy documents, and it affects the possibility of success of the case.

[pc15]Case laws are only used in Motion and Appeals.

The Rules of Civil Procedure provide that pleadings contain only facts. Arguments are only contained in Motions and Appeals.

[pc16]I believe including the word “specifically” refers directly to any Motion to challenge the bankruptcy case based on the evidence of bad faith you had.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS

Quick Links

Legal Info

Quick Inquiry

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS

Share Post

Related Posts

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

MOTION FOR JOINDER

Quick Links

Legal Info

Quick Inquiry