Opinion
3D22-129
10-12-2022
Angel Gonzalez,Appellant, v. Jude Faccidomo, Appellee.
Angel Gonzalez, in proper person. Russomanno & Borrello, P.A., and Herman J. Russomanno III, for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 21-22222 SP 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. Faccidomo. Because the matter is not before us, we do not address any potential claims against Ratzan & Faccidomo, LLC.
Affirmed.