ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JUDE FACCIDOMO
This text of ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JUDE FACCIDOMO (ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JUDE FACCIDOMO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 12, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-129 Lower Tribunal No. 21-22222 SP ________________
Angel Gonzalez, Appellant,
vs.
Jude Faccidomo, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria D. Ortiz, Judge.
Angel Gonzalez, in proper person.
Russomanno & Borrello, P.A., and Herman J. Russomanno III, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Angel Gonzalez, pro se, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his
complaint against Jude Faccidomo, Esquire seeking a refund of a retainer.
Gonzalez contracted with Faccidomo’s law firm, Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC,
to provide post-conviction legal representation to his nephew for $12,500.
Mr. Gonzalez paid the firm $7,500 to begin representation, but later
demanded a refund of $5,000. When the firm refused, Mr. Gonzalez filed the
complaint at issue against Mr. Faccidomo.
Attached to the complaint are (1) alleged receipts from the law firm;
and (2) an unsigned copy of an alleged contract presented by Mr. Faccidomo
to Mr. Gonzalez containing a non-refundable fee clause. Mr. Faccidomo
moved to dismiss arguing both that Mr. Gonzalez’s complaint incorrectly
listed Mr. Faccidomo individually as a defendant instead of his law firm, and
that the contract incorporated into the complaint conclusively established
that the fees were non-refundable. Mr. Gonzalez countered that he never
signed the agreement. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice.
We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint on the first ground.
The receipts attached to the complaint indicate that the fee payments were
made to the law firm Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC, and not to Mr. Faccidomo
individually. Any claim for a refund is properly against the firm and not Mr.
2 Faccidomo. Because the matter is not before us, we do not address any
potential claims against Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JUDE FACCIDOMO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-gonzalez-v-jude-faccidomo-fladistctapp-2022.