Thomas v. Ratiner
| Decision Date | 20 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2362,83-2362 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 326,462 So.2d 1157 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 326 Richard E. THOMAS, Appellant, v. Edwin C. RATINER, Franklin B. Glinn and Ratiner and Glinn, P.A. and Tito Nieves, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelner & Kelner and Milton Kelner, for appellant.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.
Richard E. Thomas is a medical doctor employed at Glades General Hospital in Belle Glades, Florida, as Director of Emergency Services. He is also a member of the Florida Bar in good standing. On January 22, 1982, Richard E. Thomas, allegedly in his capacity as an attorney, entered into a retainer fee contract with the defendant, Tito Nieves, while Nieves was a patient in Glades General Hospital. Thereafter, Tito Nieves entered into a written retainer agreement with the law firm of Ratiner and Glinn who had orally been employed prior to signing with Thomas. Tito Nieves then discharged Richard E. Thomas. As a result thereof, Thomas brought the instant action seeking damages against Ratiner and Glinn for tortious and intentional interference with his retainer contract with Nieves. He also sued Nieves for services rendered. After a jury trial, the trial court entered the final judgments presently under review wherein Thomas was awarded zero damages against Ratiner and Glinn and costs were awarded to Ratiner and Glinn. Thomas recovered $5,489 from Nieves for services rendered plus costs. Ratiner and Glinn have cross-appealed the judgment in favor of Thomas and against them. 1 Nieves has cross-appealed from the judgment in favor of Thomas and against him.
While several points have been raised on the main and cross-appeals, we need to discuss only one in determining this appeal. By their cross-appeal all of the defendants allege the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict on the ground that Thomas had solicited his contract with Nieves in violation of Section 877.02 Florida Statutes (1981) and that said act rendered Thomas's contract void ab initio and incapable of being sued upon. We agree with this contention for the following reasons. Thomas contends that when he signed the contract with Nieves he was contacting him as a lawyer, not as a doctor, thus Section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) is not applicable to him and he was not guilty of violation thereof. This contention is simply without merit. Section 877.02(2) provides:
"It shall be unlawful for any person in the employ of or in any capacity attached to any hospital ... to communicate directly or indirectly with any attorney or person acting on said attorney's behalf for the purpose of aiding, assisting or abetting such attorney in the solicitation of legal business or the procurement through solicitation of a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing the attorney to perform or render legal services." (emphasis added)
Thomas was Director of Emergency Services at Glades General Hospital in complete charge of anything to do with emergency services. As such, he was an employee attached to the hospital when he obtained the retainer agreement from Nieves. Thomas was present in the hospital, in the hospital administrator's office, when he was informed by the hospital administrator that Nieves wanted to see him. To permit him to now say that "I went to Nieves' room as an attorney, not a doctor, so it is all right" would simply belie the facts. His knowledge of Nieves' problem and his invitation to Nieves' room were all gained by virtue of the fact that he was present in the hospital in his capacity as an employee. This cannot be changed by his mere statement that he is now a lawyer. Therefore, we find that Thomas acquired the retainer agreement from Nieves in violation of Section 877.02(2), Florida Statutes (1983). Said violation has rendered the retainer agreement void ab initio. The right to contract is subject to the general rule that the agreement must be legal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc.
...Sangles, 637 So.2d 989, 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that a contract in violation of a Florida statute is void); Thomas v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (same). The second possible source of consideration is the attorneys' fees provision (discussed at length in part VI......
-
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Tampa Bay Downs
...complaint because no cause of action for tortious interference exists when the contract interfered with is void. See Thomas v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Gulfstream argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because a claim of tortious interference exists even if the und......
-
Agudo, Pineiro & Kates, P.A., v. Harbert Const. Co.
...the contested final summary judgment. At oral argument, this court raised an issue on its own motion: the relevance of Thomas v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) to this case. The issue presented in both cases is the applicability of section 877.02, Florida Statutes (1981) to the ......
-
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Van Gessel
...to thwart established public policy. American Cas. Co. v. Coastal Caisson Drill Co., 542 So.2d 957 (Fla.1989); Thomas v. Ratiner, 462 So.2d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1985). They criticize all but one of the cases cited by the appellants as precedent p......