Case Name: ARTHUR W. TIFFORD, P.A., and Tifford and Tifford, P.A., Appellants, v. LITIGATION CONCEPTS, L.C., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2012-06-06
Citations: 89 So. 3d 1072
Docket Number: Nos. 3D10-2045, 3D10-2044, 3D10-1277
Parties: ARTHUR W. TIFFORD, P.A., and Tifford and Tifford, P.A., Appellants, v. LITIGATION CONCEPTS, L.C., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 89
Pages: 1072–1072

Head Matter:
ARTHUR W. TIFFORD, P.A., and Tifford and Tifford, P.A., Appellants, v. LITIGATION CONCEPTS, L.C., et al., Appellees.
Nos. 3D10-2045, 3D10-2044, 3D10-1277.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 6, 2012.
Tifford and Tifford and Arthur Tifford, Miami, for appellants.
Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine and Alan Kluger and Terri Meyers, Miami, for appellees.
Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm, holding that the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants' claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. See Faro v. Romani, 641 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla.1994) (holding "when an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation.").
We likewise affirm the trial court's orders denying each party's motion for sanctions pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determinations.
Affirmed.