Fox v. Widjaya
Decision Date | 06 November 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 3D13–2548.,3D13–2548. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | Sandy T. FOX, Esquire & Sandy T. Fox, P.A., Petitioners, v. Tommy WIDJAYA & Maria Guerra–Perez, Respondents. |
Sandy T. Fox, Aventura, for petitioners.
Gloria C. Gonzalez, Hialeah; Ford & Phillips and Ayesa Phillips, for respondents.
Before SUAREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.
Petitioners, Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, and Sandy T. Fox, P.A., filed a petition for writ of certiorari following the trial court's sua sponte order directing Sandy T. Fox, Esquire to produce all discovery and mandatory disclosure documents contained in his (and his law firm's) files, and which were acquired in the course of representing his former client. For the reasons that follow, we issue the writ and quash the trial court's order.
Petitioners were retained to represent Tommy Widjaya, in a dissolution action between Widjaya and his wife Maria Guerra–Perez. Widjaya entered into a retainer agreement in which he expressly agreed Petitioners would “have a retaining lien on your entire file, including evidentiary documents, property or any other thing of value of yours in our possession to secure the payment of all sums due to us from you under the terms of this agreement.”
Several months later, on September 9, 2013, Petitioners moved to withdraw from further representation due to irreconcilable differences, including Widjaya's failure to pay Petitioners' attorney's fees. Simultaneous with the filing of their motion to withdraw, Petitioners filed a notice and claim of a retaining lien. At a status conference held on October 3, 2013,1 the trial court sua sponte ordered Sandy T. Fox, Esquire to
Upon receiving a copy of the trial court's sua sponte order, Petitioners filed this petition. Respondent Guerra–Perez filed a response, conceding that the trial court entered its sua sponte order without a motion or notice of hearing to Petitioners. Guerra–Perez further concedes that the trial court denied Petitioners due process and disregarded the retaining lien which was imposed pursuant to the agreement entered into by Widjaya. Respondent Widjaya filed a response acknowledging that no motion was filed seeking an order compelling these documents, no hearing was set for this purpose, and no notice was sent to petitioners. Widjaya contends, however, that the petition should be denied because Petitioners “have other avenues of recourse that can and have been exercised in order to ensure payment of attorney's fees allegedly owed without materially prejudicing its former client, such as a charging lien and/or a separate civil suit.”
It is undisputed that Petitioners established a valid retaining lien in this matter. As a result, Petitioners may properly maintain this retaining lien over the former client's file until the legal fees have been paid or an adequate security for payment has been posted. Brickell Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Joseph H. Ganguzza & Assocs., P.A., 31 So.3d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).2 Widjaya's argument—that Petitioners have “other avenues of recourse... to ensure payment of attorney's fees”—falls short. As the Fourth District observed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alessi Family Ltd. P'ship v. Centurion Dev., LLC (In re Alessi Family Ltd. P'ship)
...The fact that an attorney may have "other avenues of recourse" is not an exception to a retaining lien. See Fox v. Widjaya , 201 So.3d 26, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).Furthermore, there are no findings explaining how the escrowed funds the bankruptcy court mentions constitute adequate security fo......
-
Conde & Cohen, P.L. v. Grandview Palace Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...client securing the right to inspect and copy the papers or compelling their production by subpoena.”).As this court in Fox v. Widjaya, 201 So.3d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), confirmed, where a valid retaining lien has been asserted, the attorney asserting it may retain the property subject to th......
- Murphy v. Murphy