Court Opinion

ID: 9556208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:06:13.928213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.972178
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 16, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-354
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-25798
                          ________________

                   Sentry Public Adjusting, LLC,
                                 Petitioner,

                                     vs.

     Captiva Lakes Condominium Association, Inc., et al.,
                               Respondents.

     A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

      Alonso Appeals, and Cristina Alonso (Pembroke Pines); Jorge C.
Borrón, PLLC, Jorge C. Borrón and Brett Caballero; Freidin Brown, P.A., and
Joel H. Brown, for petitioner.

     Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo, Cohen & Peterfriend and Anthony Perez;
Link & Rockenbach, PA, Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz
(West Palm Beach); Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B.
Feltman, for respondents.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

     FERNANDEZ, J.
      Sentry Public Adjusting, LLC (“Sentry”) seeks a writ from this Court

prohibiting the trial court from adjudicating Sentry’s lien rights or making any

determination regarding Sentry’s agreement with plaintiff/respondent

Captiva    Lakes   Condominium       Association,   Inc.   (“Captiva   Lakes”).

Specifically, Sentry contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

adjudicate the matter. For the following reasons, we grant the petition for writ

of prohibition.

                               BACKGROUND

      Sentry is a public adjusting firm licensed in the State of Florida. On

June 3, 2019, the representative of Captiva Lakes executed an agreement

retaining Sentry as a public adjuster to help Captiva Lakes adjust its

hurricane insurance claim against defendant/respondent, Citizens Property

Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”). Under the agreement, Captiva Lakes

agreed to pay Sentry “Ten (10%) of the total amount of actual loss or

damages recovered by adjustment, litigation, settlement, appraisal, bad faith

or otherwise, from any source.” Sentry claims it thereafter provided services

in adjusting Captiva Lakes’ claim.

      In August 2019, Captiva Lakes sued Citizens alleging a breach of

insurance contract claim regarding alleged 2017 Hurricane Irma damages to

Captiva Lakes’ condominium property. Sentry was never a party in the case.

                                       2
      On December 2, 2021, Sentry filed a Notice of Filing Lien. Sentry

attached a copy of the settlement agreement between Sentry and Captiva

Lakes to the Notice of Lien.

      Before trial, Captiva Lakes and Citizens settled the case. On October

14, 2022, Captiva Lakes filed Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement of the case,

notifying the trial court that a settlement had been reached between Captiva

Lakes and Citizens. Captiva Lakes also notified the trial court that the parties

would be submitting an Order of Dismissal with the trial court reserving

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Sentry did not

participate in any settlement discussions, was not a party to the settlement

agreement, was not listed on the Certificate of Service, and was not served

with the Notice of Settlement.

      On October 25, 2022, the trial court entered its “Order of Dismissal

Based On Settlement.” The order states:

      THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Notice of Settlement
      filed October 14, 2022, and the Court having been advised that
      the matter has been settled, it is hereby

      ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is dismissed. The
      Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and to enter
      orders necessary to this enforcement.

Sentry was not served with the order because it was not a party to the case

and was not on the service list. The final order was not appealed.

                                       3
      On December 14, 2022, Captiva Lakes filed a Motion to Special Set

Hearing on Allocation of Settlement Funds. A. 23-24. The motion stated that

Captiva Lakes’ counsel was in possession of the settlement drafts and that

“certain third parties may have or claim an interest in the funds payable to

[Captiva Lakes].” The motion did not mention Sentry’s Notice of Charging

Lien or Captiva Lakes’ agreement with Sentry, does not include Sentry on

the certificate of service, and was not served on Sentry.

      On January 8, 2023, Captiva Lakes filed a Motion to Reopen Case and

for Leave to Amend Complaint. The motion stated that “certain third parties

continue to claim an interest in the funds payable to [Captiva Lakes],

including JKS Construction and Inspections, Inc. [(“JKS”)], a roofing

contractor purportedly retained by [Captiva Lakes], . . . .” Captiva Lakes thus

sought leave to amend the complaint to include a claim against JKS. The

motion and proposed Amended Complaint did not mention Sentry, its lien,

or its agreement with Captiva Lakes.

      The next day, on January 9, 2023, the trial court heard Captiva Lakes’

Motion to Special Set Hearing on Allocation of Settlement Funds, Motion to

Reopen Case and for Leave to Amend Complaint, and an Ore Tenus Motion

to Bifurcate Former Counsels’ Charging Lien. Sentry did not attend the

hearing because it did not receive Captiva Lakes’ notice of the hearing.

                                       4
On January 13, 2023, the trial court entered an Order to Show Cause, based

on the January 9 hearing, which stated, “[Captiva Lakes] has not yet received

the benefit of said settlement due to third-party claims against the settlement

proceeds, specifically non-parties JKS Construction & Inspections, Inc.

(“JKS”), Sentry Public Adjusting, LLC (“Sentry”), and [Captiva Lakes’] former

counsel, Kling Law, P.A. and Dicus & Burke, PLLC (“Former Counsel”).”

Although the order states that Sentry received notice of the hearing via e-

mail and Federal Express related to the adjudication and discharge of their

respective claims, Sentry claims it did not receive timely notice. The order

stated that JKS, Sentry and former counsel “shall appear before the Court

via Zoom/Virtual Courtroom” on January 23, 2023:

      to show cause why their claim(s) to the Plaintiff's settlement
      funds should not be discharged and the settlement funds
      immediately released to Plaintiff. Non-parties, JKS, Sentry and
      Former Counsel, will appear prepared to present evidence as to
      their alleged entitlement to and the amount of their respective
      interests…. Failure to appear will be deemed an abandonment
      of that entity’s claim and will result in the entry of an Order
      extinguishing and forever barring such abandoned claim.

The order was not served on Sentry. Also on January 13, 2023, Captiva

Lakes filed a Notice of Hearing titled “Evidentiary – Set by the Court” on the

Order to Show Cause, for a hearing set for 8:30 a.m. on January 23, 2023.

Captiva Lakes’ Notice of Hearing was not addressed to Sentry, and Sentry

is not listed on the Certificate of Service. On January 17, 2023, Sentry was

                                      5
served with notice that Captiva Lakes settled its claims against Citizens and

objected to Sentry’s lien rights, with the Order to Show Cause, and with

Captiva Lakes’ Notice of Hearing for January 23, 2023.

      On January 19, 2023, Sentry filed its Emergency Motion to Continue

Order to Show Cause Hearing set for January 23, 2023. Sentry argued it did

not have enough time to prepare a response. The trial court granted the

motion. On January 20, 2023, Sentry filed a breach of contract action against

Captiva Lakes in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,

Florida.

      On January 23, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the Order to

Show Cause. Because the trial court had granted Sentry’s motion for

continuance, Sentry was not at the hearing. The trial court only addressed

Sentry insofar as it had granted Sentry a continuance, so it was not required

to be present at the hearing. The trial court did not address Sentry’s lien or

Sentry’s agreement with Captiva Lakes.

      On February 1, 2023, Captiva Lakes filed motions for the trial court to

enter its proposed order on the January 23 Order to Show Cause hearing.

Captiva Lakes also moved for a protective order so that Captiva Lakes’

former counsel and Sentry be precluded from engaging in discovery, and it

                                      6
requested that the trial court schedule an expedited final evidentiary hearing

on Captiva Lakes counsels’ and Sentry’s alleged interests.

      On February 2, 2023, the trial court entered its Order Regarding Show

Cause Hearing. The court granted Captiva Lakes’ motion to reopen the case

and for leave to amend its complaint. The trial court directed Citizens to

reissue the two settlement checks that had not yet been deposited and make

them payable to Captiva Lake’s counsel’s trust account pending further order

of the court. The trial court also precluded Sentry from engaging in discovery

and ordered that Captiva Lakes, Sentry, and Captiva Lakes’ former counsel

scheduled a two-hour evidentiary hearing to adjudicate former counsel’s and

Sentry’s claims.

      On February 3, 2023, Sentry filed a Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and

Motion for Reconsideration of the February 2, 2023 Order. Sentry argued

that according to Monteagudo v. Cimbler, 306 So. 3d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020), the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate Sentry’s lien

rights after the trial court entered its order dismissing the case. Sentry

contended it should not be required to attend an evidentiary hearing on its

charging lien without first obtaining discovery. On February 7, 2023, Captiva

Lakes filed a response and cross-motion, claiming Sentry’s Notice of Lack of

Jurisdiction was a sham and should be stricken.

                                      7
      In addition, on February 7, 2023, Captiva Lakes filed its amended

complaint, where it removed Citizens as a defendant and filed its claims

against JKS. Captiva Lakes did not assert any claims against Sentry.

      On February 8, 2023, the trial court held a case management

conference, which was the first hearing that Sentry attended.              Sentry

addressed the court’s lack of jurisdiction considering the dismissal order and

requested that the trial court allow Sentry to engage in discovery. The court

denied Sentry’s request for discovery of the settlement amount and

scheduled an in-person evidentiary hearing to adjudicate Sentry’s rights and

all lien holders' rights. The court stated that it would rule on Sentry's objection

to the court's adjudication of Sentry’s lien rights for lack of jurisdiction at the

beginning of the final hearing.

      On February 20, 2023, Sentry filed is Memorandum of Law on Lack of

Jurisdiction and Due Process. Sentry argued that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to adjudicate Sentry’s lien rights because the trial court entered

the Order of Dismissal. Sentry contended that although the trial court

reserved jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, it did not reserve jurisdiction

to adjudicate any lien rights. Sentry argued that the reservation of jurisdiction

to enforce the settlement agreement did not extend to an adjudication of

                                        8
Sentry’s lien rights because Sentry was not a party to the settlement

agreement between Captiva Lakes and Citizens.

      Thereafter, the trial court informed the parties that it was not available

for the in-person evidentiary hearing on the morning of February 21, 2023.

The court gave counsel the option of proceeding with the hearing the next

morning via Zoom or with an in-person hearing on February 24, 2023. The

parties could not agree on whether the hearing should be via Zoom or in

person, nor could they agree on the date of the hearing. As of the date Sentry

filed the petition for writ of prohibition with this Court, the evidentiary hearing

had not been rescheduled.

                                 DISCUSSION

      Sentry contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate

Sentry’s rights or its agreement with Captiva Lakes because the trial court

dismissed Captiva Lakes’ action without reserving jurisdiction for such

adjudication. 1 The standard of review on petition for writ of prohibition is that

      1
          Citizens responds to the Petition and states that it takes no legal
position on the scope of the trial court’s October 25, 2022 Order of Dismissal
or whether the trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Sentry’s charging
lien because Citizens is not involved in the allocation dispute. Citizens states
that it reached a settlement with Captiva Lakes, complied with its obligations
under the settlement agreement between it and Captiva Lakes, and seeks to
have no further role in this litigation.

                                        9
the trial court’s legal findings are reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s

factual findings are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence. Jackson

v. Leon Cty., Elections Canvassing Bd., 214 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA

2016); Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

      This Court has jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition according to

Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, as well as Rules

9.030(b)(3) and 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The writ

of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that “may only be granted when it

is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in

excess of jurisdiction.” English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 1977).

See also Skelly v. Skelly, 277 So. 3d, 1087, 1088-1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

and Monteagudo v. Cimbler, 306 So. 3d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Thus,

Sentry’s challenge to the court acting in excess of its jurisdiction is

appropriately raised in a petition for writ of prohibition.

      Here, Sentry has demonstrated that the trial court is acting in excess

of its jurisdiction. The trial court’s October 25, 2022 Order of Dismissal

allowed the court to remain with jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement

agreement. However, that trial court order divested the court of jurisdiction

to adjudicate Sentry’s lien rights or Sentry’s agreement with Captiva Lakes

because it did not reserve jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters.

                                        10
      In Monteagudo, Cimbler, a non-attorney and non-party to the trial court

action in that case, claimed a right to bring his own claim for fees, costs, etc.

into the residential insurance case the petitioners/plaintiffs, Lazaro and Libia

Monteagudo, had filed against Citizens. Id. at 338. An appraisal panel made

an award, and the Monteagudos voluntarily dismissed the case. Id.

      On appeal, this Court found that to “the extent that the trial court

specifically reserved jurisdiction over any claims of the parties for the

attorney’s fees, that reservation has no bearing on Cimbler’s claims or the

pending petition.” Id. (emphasis in original). This Court further stated:

      Our precedent is clear that the voluntary dismissal divested the
      trial court of further jurisdiction save (a) as expressly reserved for
      an award of any timely motions by the parties for attorney's fees,
      or (b) certain limited exceptions, none of which are applicable
      here. See, e.g., Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23, 41-43
      (Fla. 2013) (stating that a voluntary dismissal generally deprives
      the trial court of further jurisdiction; an exception applies to a
      motion for sanctions under section 57.105 filed before the notice
      of voluntary dismissal); Sidlosca v. Olympus Ins. Co., 276 So. 3d
      987, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (same); Bank of New York Mellon
      v. Poker Run Acquisitions, Inc., 208 So. 3d 199, 202 (Fla. 3d
      DCA 2016) (noting an exception to the Pino rule regarding
      continuing jurisdiction where “parties, prior to dismissal, present
      a settlement agreement to the trial court for approval and the trial
      court enters an order of dismissal predicated on the parties’
      settlement agreement, the trial court retains jurisdiction to
      enforce the terms of the settlement agreement”); Select Builders
      of Fla., Inc. v. Wong, 367 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
      (sanctions sought for conduct of a party amounting to a fraud on
      the court).

                                       11
Id. at 338-339. This Court stated that “Cimbler may of course pursue

whatever claims he wishes in a new action, and we express no opinion

regarding the merits of any such claim.” Id. at 339. This is exactly what Sentry

did when it filed its breach of contract action against Captiva Lakes in Palm

Beach County.

      In addition, this Court in Monteagudo distinguished Dynamic Public

Adjusters, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 155 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), cited by

Captiva Lakes. The Court noted that the appraisers in Dynamic had

intervened, and no dismissal by the insureds had been filed. Monteagudo,

306 So. 3d at 339. This is unlike in the case before us, where Sentry was not

a party and has not intervened, and the case was dismissed by the trial court.

      Moreover, as Sentry correctly contends, although it filed a Notice of

Charging Lien, it did not seek to enforce or adjudicate that lien before the

trial court entered its dismissal order. Sentry only sought to address the lien

and its agreement with Captiva Lakes after the trial court entered its Order

to Show Cause, which stated that failure to appear would be deemed an

abandonment of the claim and would result “in the entry of an Order

extinguishing and forever barring such abandoned claim.” Sentry notified the

trial court that it lacked jurisdiction and requested that the trial court rule on

                                       12
the issue before the evidentiary hearing. However, the trial court did not do

so.

      In addition, under Paulucci v. General Dynamics Corporation, 842 So.

2d 797 (Fla. 2003), even though the trial court in the case before us reserved

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the enforcement of that

agreement does not include the ability to adjudicate Sentry’s charging lien or

Sentry’s agreement with Captiva Lakes because Sentry was not a party to

the settlement agreement. The Florida Supreme Court explained in Paulucci

that the court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is

set by the terms of the settlement agreement. Id. at 803. The Court stated:

However, the extent of the court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms
of the settlement agreement is circumscribed by the terms of that agreement.
Thus, if a party is claiming a breach of the agreement and is seeking general
damages not specified in the agreement, the appropriate action would be to
file a separate lawsuit.

Id. at 803.Thus, because the trial court entered its Order of Dismissal, it did

not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Sentry’s charging lien nor to adjudicate

any issues related to Sentry’s agreement with Captiva Lakes.

      For these reasons, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition

precluding the trial court from continuing to adjudicate Sentry’s lien rights or

making any decision regarding Sentry’s agreement with Captive Lakes.

      Petition granted.

                                      13