JOSEPH P. KLOCK, JR.
v.
CITIBANK, N.A., ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial judge must conduct an evidentiary hearing when conflicting affidavits present material factual disputes regarding attorney disqualification, and the judge cannot rely on prior evidentiary findings from a predecessor judge when credibility determinations are required.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel without conducting an evidentiary hearing when the moving party submits affidavits…
[2] An evidentiary hearing is required when affidavits submitted by parties present conflicting factual allegations concerning the existence of an attorney-client relationshi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph and Susan Klock sought to disqualify Akerman LLP from representing Citibank in a foreclosure action, claiming Joseph had discussed the case wit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney Disqualification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph P. Klock, Jr., and Susan M. Klock appeal from a nonfinal order denying their motions to disqualify Akerman LLP from representing Citibank in this foreclosure action. Based on the contested allegations presented, the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing. Joseph and Susan M. both filed affidavits which create an issue (or issues) of fact material to the propriety of Akerman’s disqualification. Joseph’s affidavit avers that he discussed the legal and factual matters underlying this case with his sister, Kathy Klock, an attorney who has been a partner at Akerman since 2014. Joseph relies on the facts as presented in his affidavit to claim an attorney-client relationship with his sister Kathy and a resulting irreconcilable conflict with Akerman’s representation of Citibank in this case. Kathy’s affidavit, on the other hand, explains that no conversations occurred between her and her brother Joseph related to this case or previous foreclosure cases involving the same property, either before or after her arrival at Akerman, that could constitute an attorneyclient relationship or otherwise give rise to a disqualification of the entire firm.
The current judge who will be tasked with making the ultimate determinations of fact abused his discretion in not conducting an evidentiary hearing under these circumstances. See Krumholz v. Guardianship of HK, 114 So. 3d 341, 343 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Alvord v. Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Moore v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 664 So. 2d 1137, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). A trial judge may not rely on the record of an evidentiary hearing before a predecessor judge when the current judge will be required, as here, to make factual findings and assessments of credibility. See id. Accordingly, we quash the order on appeal and remand to the trial court to conduct the requisite evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 664 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Alvord v. Christal Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Krumholz v. In re Guardianship OF H.K., 114 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)