Read the article on: Daily Business Review
Summary:
In a case related to the development of property near the Miami Heat arena, the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida reversed two judges’ rulings, deeming them to lead to an “absurd result.” The dispute involved fees awarded in two lawsuits between Miami-Dade College and Nader + Museu I LLP regarding a bid protest for the development of publicly owned property. The trial court denied the college’s motion to offset a larger judgment in its favor against a smaller judgment in another case. The appellate court determined that this decision would result in an absurd outcome, allowing an insolvent party to collect a judgment while preventing the other party from collecting its larger judgment. The court emphasized the need to prevent such unreasonable results and remanded the case.
Third DCA Reverses 2 Judges for Rulings With an ‘Absurd Result’
“It’s not every day that an appellate court reverses two judges with one opinion,” said Jose Ferrer, a partner at Mark Migdal & Hayden.
October 24, 2023 | By Michael A. Mora
What You Need to Know
• The case centered around the development of the property across the street from the Miami Heat arena, the Kaseya Center.
• At issue are fees awarded in two underlying lawsuits involving the same parties.
• The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial courts erred in failing to grant the motions to offset.
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded an “absurd result” that followed a trial court’s ruling denying a motion to offset a larger judgment in its favor of a smaller judgment in another case.
“It’s not every day that an appellate court reverses two judges with one opinion,” Jose Ferrer, a Mark Migdal & Hayden partner, said about the ruling in favor of his client, Miami-Dade College, against Nader + Museu I LLLP. “Florida courts will act to prevent absurd results, such as when an insolvent judgment debtor seeks to collect a competing judgment from the judgment creditor.”
The case arose from a series of lawsuits between Nader and the college related to a bid protest in which Nader argued that the college should have selected it over three other proposers that responded to a public-private partnership solicitation for the development of publicly owned property across the street from the Miami Heat’s arena. At issue are two underlying lawsuits.
The first lawsuit involved Nader seeking a declaration that it was not required to post a protest bond, and requesting a temporary injunction preventing the college from requiring Nader to post such a bond. After the trial court granted Nader’s request for a temporary injunction, the Third DCA dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s ruling and granted Nader’s attorney fees.
At the time of the first lawsuit, Nader also filed a formal bid protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings in which the administrative judge entered an order awarding the college its attorney fees and costs against Nader in an amount exceeding $82,000. The college filed a petition to enforce the award, which the trial court granted.
But the judgment remains unpaid because Nader is insolvent.
The remanded appellate attorney fees matter from the first lawsuit remained pending until 2019, according to the opinion. The college requested permission to offset the expected appellate attorney fees award of nearly $55,000, while at the same time, Nader filed notices of attorney charging liens seeking to recover its fees in the appeal.
The trial court denied the college’s motion to offset, finding that it had “no jurisdiction over the judgment” entered in the second lawsuit, and further awarded Nader nearly $55,000 in appellate attorney fees, plus interest.
The trial court also denied the college’s motion to offset in the second lawsuit, arguing that Nader’s appellate attorney fees judgment should be offset from the amount of the previously entered judgment in its favor.
Now, the Third DCA rejected Nader’s argument that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent because the judgments did not arise from a single proceeding or unit of litigation. In addition, the judges held that the attorney’s charging liens did not have priority because the judgment in the college’s favor is superior.
The Third DCA concluded: “Accordingly, we find that the trial courts erred in failing to grant the motions to offset, as allowing the separate judgments to stand would create an absurd result—namely, one where Nader would collect on its judgment and receive a windfall benefit while MDC would be left unable to collect on its greater judgment due to Nader’s insolvency.”
