LETIZIA v. BUDDY FORD (2020)

The appellant, Denise Letizia, seeks rehearing of a per curiam affirmance without written opinion; she also seeks a written opinion. We address the concerns raised by Ms. Letizia in the motion for written opinion as follows.

On October 12, 2012, Ms. Letizia retained Buddy Ford, P.A., to represent her in her pending bankruptcy proceeding; the parties executed an Engagement and Fee Agreement. Less than one year later, on July 31, 2013, Mr. Ford sent Ms. Letizia a lengthy email detailing the history of the case and noting difficulties which had arisen between Ms. Letizia and Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford concluded his email by stating: “I must withdraw from any future representation of you in any litigation. We have far exceeded the retainer paid and because we had capped the fees I will write off the loss.” A second email, sent on August 2, 2013, advised Ms. Letizia that she could pick up her entire file, with the exception of the bankruptcy court pleadings, from Mr. Ford's office.

Over five years later, on August 27, 2018, Ms. Letizia filed a lawsuit against Buddy Ford, P.A., and Mr. Ford individually. In her one-count complaint, Ms. Letizia alleged a breach of contract, identifying the Engagement and Fee Agreement as the contract forming the basis of the lawsuit. Specifically, Ms. Letizia alleged a breach of the provision of the contract requiring Buddy Ford, P.A., “to represent the Client(s) interests as [sic] professionally and efficiently, according to the highest legal and ethical standards” and a breach of the provision requiring arbitration of any disputes as to fees, including the reasonableness of fees. Buddy Ford, P.A., and Mr. Ford filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the lawsuit raised only claims of professional malpractice and that, therefore, the lawsuit was barred as having been filed outside of the two-year statute of limitations for such claims. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the complaint sounded in malpractice and that the two-year statute of limitations as stated in section 95.11(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), had expired. Accordingly, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

We review the order dismissing Ms. Letizia's lawsuit with prejudice under the de novo standard. See Brooke v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, 828 So. 2d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Value Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Grace, 794 So. 2d 619, 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). Upon consideration of the issues raised by Ms. Letizia, we find no error in the trial court's ruling that the unartfully drawn complaint, founded on a legal services contract, was an action for professional malpractice subject to the two-year time limitation of section 95.11(4)(a). Cf. Enlow v. E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., 274 So. 3d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Owens v. Corrigan, 252 So. 3d 747, 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). We therefore affirm the dismissal with prejudice of her lawsuit.

Affirmed.

BLACK, Judge.

BADALAMENTI and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.