Florida court rules against attorney in collection dispute

A Florida court recently ruled against attorney Rhonda Hollander and her firm in a case involving alleged illegal debt collection practices. The Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion on April 8, 2020, denying Hollander's request to dismiss a complaint filed by Mamise Adrien. This decision is significant as it addresses the boundaries of the litigation privilege in collection cases.

The dispute centers around claims made by Adrien against Hollander and her firm regarding the collection of maintenance assessments and other fees. The court's ruling could have implications for how attorneys conduct debt collection and the protections available to consumers.

Background

Rhonda Hollander, P.A. and Rhonda Hollander, the petitioners in this case, are a law firm and its managing attorney. They faced allegations from Mamise Adrien, the respondent, who claimed that they violated Florida law by sending threatening collection letters for fees that were not legally enforceable. The case originated in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.

Adrien's complaint stated that Hollander's firm attempted to collect maintenance assessments, interest, late charges, and attorney’s fees despite knowing that the underlying declaration allowing for such collections had expired. This led to Adrien seeking legal action against Hollander and her firm, prompting the latter to file a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The case reached the Third District Court of Appeal after the trial court denied Hollander's motion to dismiss on August 7, 2019. The petitioners then sought a writ of certiorari, asking the appellate court to review the trial court's decision.

The Ruling

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled against Hollander, stating that the litigation privilege did not apply in this case. The court found that Adrien had sufficiently alleged that Hollander's firm violated section 559.72 of the Florida Statutes. This statute prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair or unconscionable conduct in collecting debts.

The court noted, "petitioners had no basis to proceed with the collection of these dues" due to their knowledge that the declaration was expired and unenforceable. The court referenced previous cases to support its ruling, including AGM Investors, LLC v. Business Law Group, P.A. and Cole v. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier.

The opinion was delivered per curiam, meaning it was issued by the court collectively rather than a single judge. Justices EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY were involved in the decision.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for attorneys and law firms involved in debt collection. It clarifies that the litigation privilege, which often protects attorneys from liability for actions taken in the course of legal proceedings, does not apply when they knowingly attempt to collect debts that are unenforceable.

The decision reinforces consumer protections under Florida law, particularly regarding the conduct of debt collectors. It may encourage more individuals to challenge unlawful collection practices, knowing that the courts may support their claims if the collectors are aware of the illegality of their actions.

What's Next

Hollander and her firm may choose to appeal the ruling, although the opinion did not provide specific details about the possibility of further legal action. There is no information available regarding any related cases pending in the court system.