KASTER LYNCH FARRAR & BALL, LLP, ETC.

v.

CLYDE & CO., U.S., LLP, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1747 Lower Tribunal No. 2019-26718-CA-01 ________________

Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, Appellant,

vs.

Clyde & Co., U.S., LLP, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A. and Lauri Waldman Ross; Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball, LLP, and Bruce R. Kaster (Ocala) and Skip E. Lynch (Ocala), for appellant.

Clyde & Co., US., LLP and Frederick J. Fein and Stephanie G. Kolman, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and GORDO,¹ JJ.

2

GORDO, J.

Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, LLP (“Kaster Law”) appeals a final judgment discharging Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (“Cooper Tire”) and its counsel, Clyde & Co. (“Clyde Law”), from liability on a charging lien for its attorney’s fees and costs. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse.

I.

This case arises from a wrongful death action filed by Mercina Souffrant (“Souffrant”) against Cooper Tire and others. Souffrant retained Kaster Law and Santiago Asconape (“Asconape”) to represent her in the action on a contingent fee basis, with Kaster Law serving as lead counsel. Before a settlement was reached, Souffrant discharged Kaster Law via written termination letter. Cooper Tire subsequently agreed to settle Souffrant’s claim for $250,000. On the same day, Kaster Law filed a notice of charging lien for its attorney’s fees and costs. It is undisputed that Cooper Tire and its counsel, Clyde Law, received notice of Kaster Law’s charging lien. To protect its charging lien and ensure the proper disbursement of settlement funds, Kaster Law asked Clyde Law to protect its lien when drafting the settlement documents and issuing the settlement check. Clyde

(emphasis added).

Asconape subsequently contacted Clyde Law and demanded that it draft the settlement check and make it “payable to the Trust Account of the Law Office of Santiago Asconape F/B/O Mercina Souffrant as PR of the Estate of Henold Souffrant.” Inexplicably and without notice to Kaster Law, Clyde Law agreed and drafted the check as Asconape requested without requiring Kaster Law’s endorsement. Accordingly, the check was made payable to: Law Office of Asconape F/B/O Mercina Souffrant, PR of Est. of Herold Souffrant and Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball, LLP.

(emphasis added).

Asconape deposited the check without paying Kaster Law and refused to tender payment. Kaster Law then moved to enforce its charging lien.

After a bench trial, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Cooper Tire and Clyde Law, finding their inclusion of the lienor’s name somewhere on the settlement check was sufficient to satisfy their legal obligation. Kaster Law filed a motion for rehearing, asserting that the trial

2 Asconape failed to make an appearance and was later voluntarily dismissed from the action.

II.

“In reviewing a final judgment rendered from a non-jury trial, the trial court’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness.” La Ley Sports Complex at City of Homestead, LLC v. City of Homestead, 255 So. 3d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “We apply a clear error standard to the findings of fact, and a finding will not be disturbed unless it is totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence, it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, or it was induced by an erroneous view of the law.” Id. “We review the trial court’s conclusions of law and application of law to the facts de novo.” Id.

III.

On appeal, Kaster Law argues the trial court erred in discharging Cooper Tire and Clyde Law from liability on its charging lien. In advancing this argument, Kaster Law argues the trial court misapplied controlling law on charging liens. We agree.