Ambler, D/B/A Ambler Law Group v. Bayfront Same Day Surgery Center, LLC, Bayfront Anesthesia Services, P. A.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 2D2024-1634
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

THE LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN C. AMBLER, P.A., d/b/a AMBLER LAW GROUP,

Appellant,

v.

BAYFRONT SAME DAY SURGERY CENTER, LLC; BAYFRONT ANESTHESIA SERVICES, P.A.; BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; MICHAEL J. ANTONELLI, D.O.; JEFFREY I. MARDER, M.D.; ROBERT LYNN SWYMER, CRNA; TRINA LEANNE ANTONELLI, CRNA; SANG HEE LEE, CRNA; MARIA S. PRUSHINSKI, R.N.; RACHAEL TEJEDOR, R.N.; LINNEA N. STEWART, R.N.; MICHAEL J. SOLTIS, R.N.; DONALD BLACK, R.N.; ERNEST DWAYNE DAVIS, by and through NICOLE A. DAVIS, as plenary guardian of ERNEST DWAYNE DAVIS, a judicially adjudicated mentally incapacitated adult; and NICOLE A. DAVIS, individually, as the spouse of ERNEST DWAYNE DAVIS,

Appellees.

No. 2D2024-1634

April 2, 2025

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Thomas M. Ramsberger, Judge.

Samuel J. Salario, Jr., and Caroline May Poor of Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant. Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus, Mac A. Greco, Jr., and Andrew J. Wozniak of Greco, Wozniak, & Ruiz-Carus, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees Ernest Dwayne Davis, by and through Nicole A. Davis, as plenary guardian of Ernest Dwayne Davis, a judicially adjudicated mentally incapacitated adult, and Nicole A. Davis, individually, as the spouse of Ernest Dwayne Davis.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

MORRIS, Judge. We affirm the order entering final summary judgment on Ambler Law Group's claim for a charging lien based on the written contract with appellees Ernest Dwayne Davis and Nicole A. Davis. However, the Davises conceded at oral argument that the summary judgment does not address Ambler Law Group's claim for fees based on the theory of quantum meruit, that Ambler Law Group has a pending claim against the Davises for quantum meruit, and that the funds held in trust should not be released until that claim for quantum meruit is resolved. See, e.g., King v. Young, Berkman, Berman & Karpf, P.A., 709 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that when a fee agreement between an attorney and client is unenforceable, "the attorney is entitled to recover on the basis of quantum meruit"). Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the portion of the order that directs the immediate disbursement of the funds being held in trust. Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.