Court Opinion

ID: 9906237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 15:03:45.097541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:11.245478
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                  STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D22-1670
                  LT Case No. 2011-CA-012759-X
                  _____________________________

PAUL FLAIG,

      Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

      v.

COQUINA PALMS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.

      Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

and

LARRY CINCO,

      Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
David Dugan, Judge.

Adam M. Bird, of WhiteBird, PLLC, Melbourne, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Charles C. Powers, of The Powers Law Firm, Indian Harbour
Beach, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No Appearance for Remaining Appellee.

                        December 1, 2023
PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.

JAY and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
MAKAR, J., concurring with opinion.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                               2
                                                 Case No. 5D22-1670
                                       LT Case No. 2011-CA-012759-X

MAKAR, J., concurring.

     Homeowners’ association disputes are often acrimonious and
take on a life of their own; this case is no different. This litigation,
which involves a homeowners’ association (HOA) and a board
member (Flaig) who signed a bogus contract on behalf of the HOA
that fraudulently benefited a buddy (Cinco), began in 2011—that’s
right, twelve years ago.

     As this Court recounted, after a bench trial on liability in
2017, and a bench trial on damages in 2018, the “HOA prevailed
on its breach of fiduciary duty claim against Flaig and its
conspiracy to commit fraud claim against Cinco. Flaig, an HOA
board member, had conspired with Cinco, his long-time friend, to
defraud the HOA.” Cinco v. Coquina Palms Homeowners Ass’n,
Inc., 325 So. 3d 137, 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). The “conspiracy
included Flaig’s efforts to facilitate Cinco’s unsuccessful lawsuit
against the HOA, which caused the HOA to incur attorney’s fees.”
Id. The final judgment for damages against Flaig and Cinco,
amounted to $320,125.38, which consisted of $311,379.20 to repay
the HOA for having to needlessly expend attorneys’ fees on Flaig’s
and Cinco’s conspiratorial fraud and $8,746.18 in costs as well.

     In their first appeal, Flaig and Cinco raised thirteen issues,
twelve of which were meritless. One issue, involving an unpled
claim under the wrongful act doctrine, resulted in a remand for the
trial court to determine the “HOA’s potential entitlement to
attorney’s fees on the five other bases the HOA advanced, as well
as an award of prevailing party costs.” Id. at 139.

     On remand, extensive and expensive litigation again
occurred, notwithstanding the narrow scope of this Court’s
mandate. The result was an order finding the HOA was, again,
entitled to its fees and costs, and a twenty-page single-spaced
“omnibus order” on the HOA’s fees and costs in which the trial
judge painstakingly addressed the multitude of factual and legal
claims of Flaig and Cinco, concluding in part that Flaig had

                                   3
committed a fraud upon the trial court independently justifying
fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, for such frivolous
actions. Overall, after a slight downward adjustment, the
attorneys’ fees and costs award totaled $304,115.32.

     In this appeal, Flaig—unaccompanied by Cinco—raises a bevy
of meritless issues in his fifty-page brief. As such, I concur with
affirmance of the attorney’s fees and costs award, bringing these
aspects of this case to a close. Further litigation on the amount of
appellate fees and costs in this case is likely to spawn yet another
wave of costly and economically wasteful expenditure of scarce
resources by the parties, and yet another burden on the court
system, but hope springs eternal that reasonable actions will be
taken.

     This litigation reflects a disheartening reality that
underhanded acts like those upon which liability is based in this
case have massive ripple effects, unfairly imposing tremendous
financial and litigation burdens on homeowners’ associations,
whose members bear the brunt of disreputable dealings. That’s not
to say that homeowners’ associations are blameless; cases
involving obstinate tin-eared homeowners’ associations exist too.
But this case epitomizes why laws exist to shift the litigation costs
onto malefactors who take advantage of others and then misuse
the judicial system via their lawyers. It is an embarrassment that
litigation costs in the million-dollar range have been collectively
expended over twelve years, two trials, and two appeals, when no
apparent societal benefit emerges. No one was physically hurt, no
property was damaged, no public nuisance was abated. The only
benefit is that the HOA, having prevailed on the merits, now
recovers fees and costs to rectify a fraudulent injustice perpetrated
on it and its members over a decade ago.

                                 4