transcript judge barton 10.33 am nov 30 2007

8/13/2019 Transcript Judge Barton 10.33 AM Nov 30 2007

1/49

First-ChoiceReportingServices,Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com

Page 1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

GENERAL CIVIL ACTION >NEIL. J . GILLESPIE,

P l a i n t i f f , CASE NO.: 05-CA-007205vsDIVISION: CBARKER, RODEMS, & COOK,P.A. , a Fl o r i da

corpora t i on ; and WILLIAM J .COOK,

Defendants. >

TRANSCRIPT OF: HEARINGBEFORE: The Honorab le Judge James M. Barton , I IDATE: October 30, 2007PLACE: Room 512

800 Eas t Twiggs S t r ee tTampa, Flor ida

TIME: 10:33 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.REPORTED BY: El izabe th W. Chorrushi ,

Regi s t e red Profes s iona l Repor te rFlo r ida P ro fe s s iona l Repor te r

Pages 1 - 49Orlando,Tampa,Melbourne,DaytonaBeach&LakeCountyVoice407-830-9044 Fax407-767-816

d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe


2/49


3/49

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com

Page 31 Transc r ip t o f proceedings he l d on October 302 2007 commencing a t 10:33 a.m. , a t Room 512 800 East3 Twiggs S t r ee t Tampa Flo r ida , before the Honorable James4 M Barton I I , and repor ted by El izabe th W Chorrushi ,5 Regis te red Profes s iona l Repor te r , Flo r ida P ro fe s s iona l6 Repor te r .7 THE COURT: How are you-a l l doing today?8 MR RODEMS: Good Your Honor.9 MR BAUER: Good Your Honor. How about you?

10 THE COURT: Good good.11 So in G i l l e s p i e versus Barker Rodems Cook12 and Will iam Cook we have a motion to en te r judgment13 on the plead ings .14 MR RODEMS: Yes s i r .15 THE COURT: So I m no t sure the volumes o f the16 case t ha t I got had the p leadings in them.17 Does anybody have them?18 MR RODEMS: Well I do have the compla in t19 which has a l l the a t t achments . The answer i s r e a l l y20 not mate r ia l to t h i s , Your Honor.21 THE COURT: Unless they are denied .22 MR RODEMS: Well t r ue .23 THE COURT: Do we have the answer?24 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor.25 MR RODEMS: I d i d n t br ing an ex t ra .

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


4/49


Page 4THE COURT: And I know where you a re want ing to

2 go with t h i s , but , you know.3 MR BAUER: And it w i l l be in my index , it s4 1 and 14 would be the compla in t and t hen the answer .5 THE COURT: Yeah. In f ac t6 MR RODEMS: Well the reason I say the answer7 i s r e a l l y no t mate r i a l i s because a l l the8 w e l l -p l e a de d a l l e g a t i o n s o f the compla in t a re9 accep ted as t rue on a motion for judgment on the

10 p l ead i ngs .THE COURT: But the p l e a d ings inc lude the

12 answer. And so aga in , I know - I mean you it13 looks l i k e you den ied q u i t e a few a l l e g a t i o n s14 s t a r t i n g with 1 and 4 and 6.15 So how do we - how do we ge t pas t tha t?16 MR RODEMS: e l l -17 THE COURT: I mean in t h i s motion you say18 admit them as t rue , but in the answer you deny a19 bunch of t h ings .20 MR RODEMS: Righ t . But accord ing to the21 Second D i s t r i c t in Wallace Brothe rs ve rsus Yates a t22 117 So.2d 202 203 the fac t s w e l l -p l e a de d a re23 admi t t ed , bu t of course conc lus ions of law a re no t .24 So t h a t s why I say the answer i s l a rg e ly25 i r r e l e v a n t . It d o e s n t mat t e r if we den ied them o r



5/49


Page 5no t . I f h e s a l l eged it and the compla in t i s t rue ,

2 t hen we accept those as t r u e fo r purposes of t h i s3 motion.4 THE COURT: Well , how can you wi thou t5 disavowing your answer?6 MR RODEMS: Well , it s on ly for the purposes7 o f t h i s motion .8 THE COURT: But it s a judgment on the9 p l ead i ngs . It s no t a mot ion for judgment on the

10 compla in t .MR RODEMS: What I m say ing i s t ha t if you

12 look a t the mate r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f the compla in t3 and accept them as t r u e - j u s t d i s r ega rd the answer

14 for purposes o f t h i s motion - we a re still e n t i t l e d15 to judgment on the p l ead i ngs .16 THE COURT: W ouldn t t h a t be a motion to17 d i smiss for f a i l u r e to s t a t e a cause o f ac t i on?18 MR RODEMS: Well , it s e s s e n t i a l l y the same19 animal , yes .20 THE COURT: It s a d i f f e r e n t animal .21 MR BAUER: Which has a l ready been ru l ed on.22 There has been a motion to dismiss and it s been23 denied .24 THE COURT: Was it fo r f a i l u r e to s t a t e a cause25 of ac t ion?

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 80404f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


6/49

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www firstchoicereporting.com

Page 61 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor.2 It was l i ke fo r a c t u a l l y l i k e four d i f f e r e n t3 reasons . It was fo r economic lo s s ru le , f a i l u r e to4 s t a t e a cause o f ac t ion - 5 MR RODEMS: But t he s t anda rd t ha t t he cour t6 reviews a mot ion fo r judgment on the p le a d ings i s7 d i f f e r e n t than a motion to dismiss .8 THE COURT: I s i t ? I mean can you have your9 cake and ea t it too?

10 MR RODEMS: A bs o lu t e ly .11 THE COURT: You can in an answer deny12 a l l e g a t i o n s , bu t then still ge t a judgment on the13 p le a d ings ?14 MR RODEMS: Yes s i r .15 MR BAUER: I be l i eve the prope r p l e a d ing would16 have been a motion for summary judgment where17 MR RODEMS: Well j u s t a second Your Honor.18 I mean t h i s i s a motion fo r judgment on the19 pleadings . It s no t what it should have been. It s20 a motion for judgment on the p l ead i ngs .21 THE COURT: Righ t . And t h a t s what I m look ing22 a t . I m no t look ing a t it as any th ing e l s e . I23 mean occas i ona l l y , we can t r e a t , by agreement a24 motion to dismiss as a motion fo r summary judgment .25 But on ly if t h a t s the r i gh t t h i ng to do.

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


7/49


Page 7And, again , you know, back in 1960-whatever

2 when t h i s case you c i t e d carne out , I guess they3 still had you know, I 'm looking a t the or ig ina l4 note from back in - - I th ink it's 1968. A motion5 for judgment on the p lead ings , the motion for6 judgment on the plead ings under Rule 1.140(c)7 MR. RODEMS: C.8 THE COURT: - - does not presen t a defense or an9 objec t ion . I t i s made only a f t e r the p leadings are

10 c losed , and it c a l l s for a dec is ion on the i s suesthey, meaning the plead ings , make.

12 MR. RODEMS: Correc t .13 THE COURT: So and t ha t i s what Mil le r?14 What case are you c i t i ng?15 MR. RODEMS: Oh, I 'm sorry . I t was Wallace16 Brothers versus Yates, which i s 1968.17 Now again, the F i f t h DCA in 2006, in Thompson18 versus Napotnik, N-a-p-o- t -n - i -k , a t 923 So.2d 53719 sa id the same th ing . Quote, The cour t must accept20 as t rue a l l wel l -p l eaded a l l ega t i ons of the21 non-moving pa r t y . " So you can accept a l l the22 a l l ega t i ons of h is complaint as t rue . We are still23 e n t i t l e d to judgment on the p lead ings . Tha t ' s our

pos i t ion today..2 5 THE COURT: Mrnrn hrnrn. You don ' t have any of


24


8/49


Page 81 those cases , do you?2 MR RODEMS: Actua l ly , I d i d n t br i ng those3 cases with me because I thought it was so - such a4 wel l -unders tood concept . But I ll be happy to5 submit those .6 THE COURT: Yeah. Because I - aga in , the l a s t7 t h i ng I want to do i s say okay let s do what you8 say and then, you know they - assuming I ru le in9 your favor in whole o r in pa r t - and then they take

10 an appea l and say wel l , t he se pleadings s e t upd i spu t ed i s sues o f f ac t .

12 So how can you poss ib ly have a motion for13 judgment on the p leadings?14 MR RODEMS: Well aga in , when you r e on a15 motion to dismiss , you accept a l l the a l l e g a t i o n s o f16 the compla in t .17 THE COURT: T h a t s because t h e r e s no answer18 f i l e d denying anyth ing .19 MR RODEMS: Right .20 THE COURT: And you have to .21 MR RODEMS: Right .22 THE COURT: But on the p leadings , it s not a23 motion for judgment on the compla in t . It s a motion24 for judgment on the p l ead i ngs .25 MR RODEMS: Well perhaps we could proceed and

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6cS92ea S040 4f6b abf2 cSe7692fdbe


9/49


Page 91 it w i l l become c l e a r .2 THE COURT: Yeah I mean go ahead. That was3 j u s t my i n i t i a l t hough t .4 MR RODEMS: All r i g h t . I f you w i l l t ake a5 look, t he re a re t h r e e d i s t i n c t arguments t oday . The6 f i r s t i s the breach o f c o n t r a c t ac t ion aga ins t7 Mr. Cook. The second i s the breach o f c o n t r a c t8 ac t ion aga ins t Barker , Rodems Cook. And the t h i r d9 i s f raud aga ins t bo th de fe nda n t s . I ll address the

10 breach of c o n t r a c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Mr. Cook.11 THE COURT: And aga in , you s a i d a t the bot tom12 o f Page 4 t h a t you a re e n t i t l e d to summary judgment .13 I d o n t t h i nk you meant t h a t .14 MR RODEMS: Right . Well judgment summari ly15 Judge . But it shou ld be judgment on the pleadings ,16 c o r r e c t . I saw t h a t as wel l when I was prepa r i ng17 for t h i s . I apologize .18 The c o n t r a c t which Mr. G i l l e s p i e a t t ached t o19 h i s compla in t which he c la ims i s the ope ra t i ve2 con t r ac t , Your Honor i s Exhib i t 1 . I f you w i l l21 t ake a look a t Exhi b i t 1 y o u l l see t h a t Nei l22 G i l l e s p i e i s r e t a in in g and employing the law f i rm o f23 Barker , Rodems Cook P.A.24 THE COURT: Right .

5 MR RODEMS: Mr. Wil l iam J . Cook i s not a pa r ty

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166

d6cB92ea B040 4f6b abf2 cBe7692fdbe4


10/49


Page 10to t h i s c o n t r a c t , so t h e r e ' s no p o s s i b i l i t y o f

2 ho ld ing Mr. Cook l i a b l e fo r breach o f c o n t r a c t .3 There ' s j u s t no t - h e ' s no t a p a r t y to the4 c o n t r a c t . He ' s an a t t o r n e y with t he law f i rm o f5 Barker , Rodems Cook. And Barker , Rodems Cook i s6 the one t h a t e n t e r e d i n t o t h i s c o n t r a c t .7 So, c l e a r l y a breach o f c o n t r a c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t8 Mr. Cook i s no more v i a b l e t han if Mr. G i l l e s p i e9 decided he would sue you, Your Honor, fo r breach of

10 c o n t r a c t . You ' re not a p a r ty to t h i s c o n t r a c t11 e i t h e r .12 THE COURT: Righ t . Except t hey d id - I t h i nk13 you, in summarizing here , you concede t h a t t hey have14 a l l eged t h a t Cook i n d iv id u a l l y was p a r t o f t h i s15 con t r ac t , bu t t h a t t he w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t its lf shows16 h e ' s not a p a r t y . I s t h a t17 MR RODEMS: Cor re c t , Your Honor. And if you18 w i l l look a t the cases , GEICO versus Grac i ,19 G -r - a - c - i , 849 So.2d 1196 and 1199, Any pleading ,2 any document a t t a c h e d to a p le a d ing i s p a r t of the21 p le a d ing fo r a l l purposes . And if an a t t ached22 document nega tes a p l e a d e r ' s cause o f ac t ion , the23 p l a i n language o f t he document w i l l con t ro l and may24 be the b a s i s fo r a motion to d i s m i s s . T h a t ' s in25 France Trac t o r ve r s us J I Case Company and t he o t h e r


d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


11/49


Page 111 case t h a t holds t h a t we ve c i t e d as wel l .2 THE COURT: And it w a s n t s igned , r i g h t ?3 MR RODEMS: No, Your Honor. But Mr. G i l l e s p i e4 has t aken the p o s i t i o n t h a t t h i s i s a c o n t r a c t5 between the p a r t i e s . And accord ing to the case law,6 even though the c o n t r a c t was not s igned , u n t i l it s7 superceded , it remains binding . T h a t s what the8 case law says .9 We a re no t r a i s i ng the i s s u e today t h a t the

10 con t r ac t has not been s igned . But what we a re11 saying i s t ha t if the c o n t r a c t shows it s between12 Barker , Rodems Cook13 THE COURT: Righ t .14 MR RODEMS: and G i l l e s p i e - 15 THE COURT: But your case says the quote16 t h a t you gave says even if the p a r t i e s do no t s i gn a17 con t r ac t , t hey may be bound by the prov i s i on o f the18 con t r ac t if the evidence s uppor t s t h a t t hey ac t ed as19 if the prov i s i ons o f the c o n t r a c t were in fo rce .20 MR RODEMS: Correc t .21 THE COURT: So, I mean, you have, aga in , an22 ev iden t i a ry i s sue as to who - as to what - whether23 t ha t was the c o n t r a c t between t hos e p a r t i e s or24 whether maybe t he re were o t h e r p a r t i e s because25 nobody s igned any w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t appa ren t l y .



12/49


Page 12MR RODEMS: Well t h e r e s no a l l ega t i on in the

2 compla in t t ha t t h e r e s anyth ing but t h i s c o n t r a c t .3 THE COURT: Well except t ha t , as a l l eged , t4 says t ha t the law f i rm and the i nd iv idua l lawyer5 were p a r t i e s to the cont rac t . And s ince we d o n t6 have a s igned w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t , then - r i gh t - who7 knows depending what the evidence shows.8 I s n t t ha t what the case shows? I s n t t ha t the9 case you c i t ed?

10 MR RODEMS: No t h a t s not what the case says11 a t a l l . I t j u s t says t ha t an unsigned con t rac t i s12 binding on the p a r t i e s13 THE COURT: Might be.14 MR RODEMS: Yeah.15 THE COURT: Depending on what the evidence16 shows.17 MR RODEMS: Right .18 THE COURT: And t might not be depending on19 what the evidence shows.20 So I mean how can we answer t h i s ques t i on21 u n t i l we see what the evidence i s ?22 MR RODEMS: There s no a l l ega t i on in the23 compla in t t ha t Mr. Cook and Mr. G i l l e s p i e ente red24 in to a wri t t en c o n t r a c t . There s no a l l ega t i on in25 the compl ian t

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-816d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe


13/49


Page 13THE COURT: Right . So t hen t he re i s an o ra l

2 con t r ac t o r t h e r e s t h a t w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t maybe3 MR RODEMS: Well he has - 4 THE COURT: - t h a t no one s igned .5 MR RODEMS: He would have to a l l ege t h a t in6 the compla in t for it to be the b a s i s o f a breach o f7 con t r ac t ac t ion .8 I mean aga in , we a r e t a lk ing about judgment on9 t he p l e a d ings , does the p le a d ings s t a t e a cause o f

10 ac t ion . And if he has no t a l l eged t h a t t h i s w r i t t e n11 con t r ac t was between him G i l l e s p i e , and Cook and12 t h e r e s no o t h e r a l l ega t i on in the compla in t , we13 c a n t we c a n t go beh ind the scenes and c re a t e a14 cause o f ac t i on fo r Mr. G i l l e s p i e t h a t he h a s n t15 p leaded . We a re e n t i t l e d to due process on t ha t .16 THE COURT: What i s a l l eged r e ga rd ing what the17 con t r ac t i s ?18 MR BAUER: Your Honor t ha t t h e r e was a19 w r i t t e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c o n t r a c t .2 However the one t h i ng t h a t counse l appears to21 be i gnor ing in t h i s s i t u a t i o n and t h a t con t r ac t22 i s not a t t a c h e d to t h i s compla in t and we must keep23 in mind t h a t t h i s was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d as a pro se24 compla in t , so t he re i s going to be a littl b i t more25 l a t i t u d e with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of it - t he re was

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-816d6cB92ea B040 4f6b abf2 cBe7692fdbe


14/49


Page 141 a wr i t t en , s igned c o n t r a c t by the p re de c e s s o r f i rm2 to Barker , Rodems Cook t h a t was s igned by bo th3 p a r t i e s .4 When t h a t f i rm d i s so l ved , t h i s was a s s igne d o r5 w a s n t a s s igne d . We d o n t know what - and t he6 ev idence w i l l show you know whether , in fac t , t7 d id become an ass ignment .8 THE COURT: So a re we on t he pro se vers i on o f9 the compla in t?

10 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor.11 THE COURT: How do you f ee l about t h a t ?12 MR BAUER: I d l i k e to amend t and make t13 a - 14 MR RODEMS: Wait j u s t a second Your Honor.15 The pro se p l a i n t i f f d i smissed h i s c la ims a g a i n s t16 us .17 THE COURT: Righ t .18 MR RODEMS: And t hen he f i l e d t h i s motion19 say ing he wanted to r e v ive them. We a r e here on a20 mot ion fo r judgment on the p l ead i ngs . Mr. Bauer has21 been in t h i s case s i nce A pr i l and now he comes in22 here today when we a re he a r ing t h i s and says , we l l ,23 give him a break because Mr. G i l l e s p i e f i l e d t pro24 se , and by the way I d l i k e to amend t h i s ?25 MR BAUER: A c tua l ly , I did make an a t tempt to



15/49


Page 15amend the compla in t which c h a r a c t e r i z e d when I s a i d

2 t h a t we would be able to f i l e t h i s as a3 counte r -compla in t and t h a t would a c tu a l l y more s t and4 in the s t ead o f what I would forward . And t he re5 still needs to be some i s s u e s t h a t I would l i k e to6 address wi th t ha t .7 However, I t h ink f i r s t , I am kind o f8 confused as to why w e r e hav ing t h i s hear ing a t a l l9 today because we have an appea l a wr i t of

10 c e r t i o r a r i t h a t s ou t s t and i ng t h a t w i l l ge t r i d of11 a l l t hese i s sues if it goes t h rough .12 THE COURT: As to what?

1 3 MR BAUER: As to whether t h i s c o u r t s l a s t14 orde r was v a l i d in a l lowing the p l a i n t i f f to dismiss15 t h e i r vo l un t a ry d i s m i s s a l . That was immediate ly16 f i l e d a f t e r . t seemed to me t h a t o r i g i n a l l y t h a t17 was something more warran ted to go forward wi th and18 was, you know, more exped i t i ous and a s s e r t i n g19 j u d i c i a l economy.20 So I t h i nk - - and as fa r as whether o r no t the21 compla in t itself i s whether counsel i s t r y in g to22 a s s e r t the i s sue o f the vo l un t a ry d i smi ssa l , t ha t23 i s sue has been r e so l ved as f a r as t h i s cour t i s24 concerned. We a re back to doing the i s sue .25 Yes. We ve been dea l i ng with o t h e r i s sues .



16/49


Page 16But I d o n t see in any way t h e r e s been - t he re

2 h a s n t been a s in g l e amendment to t h i s compla in t .3 The case law c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t it s not4 pr e j ud i c i a l to the o t h e r p a r t y to a t l e a s t al low one5 amendment of the compla in t . Many o f the case law6 goes up to the cour t s h a l l al low up to four .7 MR RODEMS: There i s no motion to amend the8 compla in t f i l e d wi th t h i s cour t .9 MR BAUER: The cour t asked a d i r e c t que s t ion

10 to me on whether o r no t I would t h i nk it would be11 warranted to amended compla in t and I responded12 THE COURT: I asked if you f e l t comfor tab le13 with the cu r ren t ve r s ion .14 MR BAUER: I t h ink t h e r e s probab ly t h i ngs - 15 problems probab ly cou ld be d e a l t wi th and c l a r i f i e d16 and i s sues could be b e t t e r d e a l t wi th if we went and17 f i l e d for an amended - an amended compla in t and18 moved forward from t h a t p o i n t .19 THE COURT: How f a r a long i s the I know the20 p e t i t i o n fo r wr i t o f c e r t i o r a r i has been f i l e d .21 MR RODEMS: We w i l l f i l e d a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i22 fo l lowing Your Honor s ru l i n g a l lowing them to23 rev ive the d i smissed c la im. The Second DCA has24 ordered Mr Bauer to f i l e a response on b e h a l f o f25 Mr G i l l e s p i e under the w r i t . Mr Bauer has asked



17/49


Page 17me to agree to a two-week e x te ns ion o f t ime for him

2 to prepa re h i s response because h e ' s got a tri l3 scheduled , and I s a i d I have no ob jec t ion to t ha t .4 So t h a t ' s where t h i ngs s t and with t ha t .5 We d o n ' t want t h i s cont inued because we want6 we want t h i s case to be brought to a c onc lus ion . I f7 Mr. Bauer f e l t an amendment was necessa ry , he could8 have f i l e d a motion fo r l eave to amend the compla in t9 a t any t ime.

10 But to corne in on the day t h a t we ' re here on11 the motion for judgment on the p le a d ings wi thou t a12 w r i t t e n motion and then say , I ' m uncomfor tab le with13 the compla in t f i l e d by Mr. G i l l e s p i e , and t hen ask14 for l e n i e nc y because he f i l e d it pro se to me i s15 j u s t one more fu r t h e r de la y t h a t my c l i e n t s16 shou ldn ' t have to endure .17 ow you should keep in mind t ha t while18 Mr. G i l l e s p i e was pro se , he l i t i g a t e d t h i s case ,19 moved to d i s q u a l i fy Judge Nielson , moved to20 d i s q u a l i fy Judge Isom t hen took a d i s c ove ry o rde r21 up on a p e t i t i o n for wr i t of c e r t i o r a r i and an22 appea l . Both of those were dismissed . We had a23 motion for orde r to show cause what he wouldn ' t t u rn24 over d i s c ove ry . He carne in and f i l e d a l e t t e r25 say ing t h a t he was going to have an a t t o r n e y



18/49


Page 18appo in ted fo r him by an insurance company. And then

2 he r e t r a c t e d from t h a t and t o ld the i n s u ra nc e3 company not to defend the c la im fo r him.4 Every th ing about t h i s case , Your Honor, has5 been de layed . I f you look a t t h a t f i l e , y o u ' l l see6 e ve ry th ing about t h i s case has been de layed . He's7 a l so moved to d i s q u a l i fy our law f i rm from8 r ep resen t i ng - me from r ep re sen t ing our law f i rm9 and Mr. Cook which was a l s o denied by Judge Nie l son .

10 So, I mean, a t what po in t do we s t op saying11 Poor , Mr. G i l l e s p i e , he ' s pro se and he ' s an12 i n d iv id u a l , and s t a r t saying , You know what , it s13 a l eve l p la y ing f i e l d ?14 These lawyers and t h i s law f i rm should no t be15 t r e a t e d any d i f f e r e n t and Mr. G i l l e s p i e should not16 be given the advantage s imply because he i s an17 i nd iv idua l who wants to c la im t ha t the l e g a l sys tem18 has s h a f t e d him.19 MR BAUER: Your Honor, I would agree t h a t I20 t h i nk t ha t a s i g n i f i c a n t por t ion o f t h i s a c t i o n has21 been delayed , bu t I be l i eve it s been on bo th s ides .22 l i v e been a t motions to d ismiss t h a t a r e n ' t23 n e c e s s a r i l y warran ted . We have a motion fo r summary24 judgment and a motion for judgment on t he p l ead i ngs .25 We have a wr i t o f c e r t i o r a r i t h a t has been f i l e d




19/49


Page 19in s tead of - - I t h ink t ha t t ha t c l e a r ly could have

2 been dea l t with a t another t ime more a p p r o p r i a t e l y3 dea l t with a l l the i s sues a t one t ime.4 I d o n t see t ha t - - I have been on t h i s case5 for a whole o f s ix months. I d o n t t h ink my f a i l u re6 to have amended the compla in t in s i x months i s7 over ly egregious cons i de r i ng we have had mul t ip l e8 i s sues to deal with , the hear ings t ha t have been9 r equ i red to come down here , the wr i t o f c e r t i o r a r i

10 t ha t has been f i l e d . I d o n t t h ink t h e r e s been any11 de lay on my pa r t o r on the p a r t o f my f i rm.12 And I was not - - I th ink , even without the

,13 amendment a t t h i s t ime I t h ink the re a re s u f f i c i e n t14 fac t s a l l eged in the compla in t t ha t br i ng up15 ques t ions to determine whether or not t h i s i s a - 16 you know who t h i s document i s b ind ing on.17 Yes. There i s an w r i t t e n agreement bu t i s18 every - - and t ha t w r i t t e n agreement memoria l izes19 some o f the terms t ha t a re conta ined in it20 However t he re i s the whole problem o f i s t ha t even21 the de fendan t s a t t empt ing to enforce an unsigned22 con t ingency fee agreement i s a breach of the23 pro fe s s iona l ru le s o f e t h i c s , so t h e r e s an i s sue24 conta ined wi th t ha t . But t h e r e s25 MR RODEMS: Well wai t j u s t a second.



20/49


1 MR BAUER: I f I - Page 20

23

MRw r i t t e n ,

RODEMS: Wait j u s t a second.s igned copy o f t h a t c o n t r a c t .

I have aI m no t the

4 one t ha t f i l e d t h i s l awsu i t . G i l l e s p i e did . AndG i l l e s p i e f i l e d an uns igned vers i on o f t ha t

6 con t rac t .7 MR BAUER: I f I may Your Honor p l ease f i n i s h8 what I was say ing p r i o r to i n t e r r u p t i o n i s if9 counsel i s say ing t ha t t he re a re - t he re in f a c t10 e x i s t s a s igned con t ingency fee agreement I t h i nk11 t ha t t he re c e r t a i n l y i s a problem t h a t in h i s12 argument now t h a t h e s say ing the pro se p l a i n t i f f13 d i d n t have access , it w a s n t ava i lab le him a14 s igned copy o f t h a t c o n t r a c t a t the t ime when he d id15 the compla in t . They a re want ing to knock it out16 because the s igned c o n t r a c t t ha t t hey admit e x i s t s17 isn t a t t a c h e d to the agreement and they a re want ing18 t o po i n t ou t t ha t the compla in t says t ha t t he re was19 a w r i t t e n agreement .20 They j u s t admi t ted the a l l e g a t i o n s in the21 compla in t . There was a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t between.22 So I mean it s - e i t h e r it i s o r it isn t, so23 where a re we?24 MR RODEMS: That i s comple te ly i n c o r r e c t .25 There i s a s igned c o n t r a c t . It e x i s t s .



21/49


Page 21Mr. G i l l e s p i e has a copy o f it

2 THE COURT: But not in the p leading and not3 a t t a c h e d t o a p l ead i ng .4 MR RODEMS: No. But t h a t was Mr. G i l le s p i e s5 dec i s i on not to do t h a t . I d o n t know why he6 d i d n t .7 THE COURT: Okay. Well t hen t ha t was h i s8 dec i s i on . And maybe he shou ld have bu t I c a n t9 make a ru l i n g on t he p l ead i ngs as t he y should have

10 been f i l e d .11 MR RODEMS: Exa c t ly .12 THE COURT: So the p le a d ings as they e x i s t13 a l l e g e a c o n t r a c t between Cook and the law f i rm on14 the one hand and G i l l e s p i e on the o the r hand and we15 have an unsigned copy o f a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t between16 a law f i rm and G i l l e s p i e .17 And as the case you c i t e d shows the evidence18 w i l l de te rmine what the c o n t r a c t was and whether19 t h a t was c o n t r a c t , t he unsigned w r i t t e n con t r ac t o r2 whether it was something e l s e . So21 MR RODEMS: Well Your Honor if you look a t22 the compla in t i t s e l f , Mr. G i l l e s p i e says t h a t he23 h i r ed the law f i rm t o r ep re sen t him. He d o e s n t24 says he h i r e d Mr. Cook. He h i r ed the law f i rm. And

5 t hen he says , Paragraph 8 G i l l e s p i e en t e red i n to a



22/49


Page 22w r i t t e n c l a s s r e p re s e n t a t i o n c 9 n t r a c t with the law

2 f i rm to per fo rm l e g a l s e rv i c e s , Exhib i t 1 . And he3 po in t s to t ha t c o n t r a c t .4 Nowhere in here does he say he had a c o n t r a c t5 with B i l l Cook to r ep re sen t him. He d o e s n t a l l e g e6 t ha t , bu t ye t he sued Mr. Cook for breach o f7 c o n t r a c t .8 THE COURT: Right . I s the re anyth ing in the9 compla in t t ha t says the p l a i n t i f f had a c o n t r a c t

10 with Cook i nd iv idua l ly?MR BAUER: Your Honor no t he re i s no th ing in

12 the compla in t . And it was my unders tanding , and the13 reason t ha t I f e l t t h a t it was still appropr i a t e t o14 i nc lude Cook i s t h a t t he re was no a c t u a l w r i t t e n15 con t r ac t between Barker , Rodems Cook t ha t was16 s igned . So t he re was an i s s u e whether o r no t in the17 f a i l u r e to execu te a new c o n t r a c t a f t e r the18 t e rmi na t i on o f t he p redecesso r f i rm may have opened19 up Mr. Cook to the l i a b i l i t y .20 I w i l l concede t ha t i t he re e x i s t s a w r i t t e n21 con t r ac t t h a t c l e a r l y shows t h a t the i s s u e i s on ly22 between Barker , Rodems Cook and Mr. G i l l e s p i e t ha t23 we have on ly a c o n t r a c t c la im fo r breach of c o n t r a c t24 aga ins t Barker , Rodems Cook.25 I d o n t be l i eve t h a t t ha t same argument i s



23/49


24/49


Page 241 prove l e t me ge t to my motion here - he ' s got to2 a l l ege a f a l s e s ta tement was made regard ing a3 mate r i a l fac t , t ha t the i nd iv idua l who sa id the4 . s ta tement knew o r should have known t ha t it was5 fa l s e , t ha t the maker in tended the o the r pa r ty r e ly6 on the s ta tement and t ha t the o the r pa r ty r e l i e d on7 a fa l s e s ta tement to h is det r iment .8 ow a fac t i s mate r ia l i f , but for the9 r ep re sen ta t ion , the aggr ieved pa r ty would not have

10 en t e red i n to the cont rac t . And t h i s i s from Ribak11 versus Centex Real E s t a t e Corp. , 702 So.2d 1316,12 quote , Rel iance on the a l l e g e d f a l se s ta tement i s13 an e s s e n t i a l element . And i the evidence shows14 t ha t the r ec ip ien t of the s t a t emen t , i n t h i s case15 Gil le sp ie , knew it was f a l s e , r e l i a n c e on the16 s ta tement i s un jus t i f i e d . Moreover, the cour t s have17 he ld t ha t a pa r ty may not recover in f raud for an18 a l l eged f a l s e s ta tement when proper d isc losu re of19 the t r u th i s subsequent ly r evea l ed in a w r i t t e n20 agreement between the p a r t i e s .21 ow Mr. G i l l e s p i e c la ims t ha t Cook t o l d him22 t ha t the cour t awarded our law f i rm $50,000 in fees .23 The wri t t en documents a t t ached to the complain t by24 Mr. Gil le sp ie , s p e c i f i c a l l y Exhib i t 2, i s the25 c los ing s ta tement our law f i rm prepa red , and t h i s i s



25/49


Page 25what Mr. G i l l e s p i e ' s s igna tu re i s on. And it says ,

2 In s ign ing t h i s c l o s i n g s ta tement , I acknowledge3 t ha t Amscot Corpora t ion s e p a r a t e l y pa i d my a t to rneys4 50,000 to compensate my a t to rneys fo r t h e i r c la im5 aga ins t Amscot for cour t -awarded fees and c o s t s .6 Mr. G i l l e s p i e s igned t h i s s ta tement7 unders t and ing t ha t Amscot pa i d our law f i rm 50,0008 for our c la im for cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y ' s fees9 not for cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y ' s fees , bu t for our

10 c la im for cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y ' s f ees .And l e t me back up fo r j u s t a second, Your

12 Honor. Mr. G i l l e s p i e r e t a i n e d our f i rm to sue13 Amscot for a pay day l oan v io l a t i o n under the Truth14 in Lending Act . The Truth in Lending Act i s a15 f ede ra l s t a t u t e t ha t provides t ha t if it s v i o l a t e d ,16 the i nd iv idua l who s u f f e r s the v i o l a t i on i s e n t i t l e d17 to c e r t a in damages, which a re capped, and a l s o t ha t18 if t ha t p a r t y p re v a i l s , the l o s ing pa r ty s h a l l pay19 the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y an a t t o r n e y fee .20 Our c o n t r a c t with Mr. G i l l e s p i e says t h a t the21 defendant may pay some or a l l o f our a t t o r n e y ' s22 fees , if you look a t Exhib i t 1 . When the case23 s e t t l e d , Mr. G i l l e s p i e r ece i ved 2000 and Amscot24 agreed to pay our law f i rm 50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s25 fees . When Mr. G i l l e s p i e s igned t h i s c l o s i n g

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-816d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e 7692fdbe


26/49

2


Page 26s t a t emen t , he knew t h a t Amscot was pay ing us fo r ourc la im fo r cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y ' s f ee s .

3 Mr. G i l l e s p i e even p a r t i c i p a t e d in the4 nego t i a t i ons , Your Honor. Look a t E xh ib i t Number 4.5 This i s a l e t t e r from - - and t h i s i s a t t a c h e d to6 Mr. G i l l e s p i e ' s compla in t . This i s a l e t t e r from7 Mr. Cook to Mr. G i l l e s p i e t h a t says , quote , In8 add i t i on , you, G i l l e s p i e , au tho r i zed us to demand9 1000 to s e t t l e your c l a im p lus 50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s

10 f ees and c o s t s . So Mr. G i l l e s p i e knew andau tho r i zed us to do t h a t .

12 Then if you go to E xh ib i t 5, Mr. G i l l e s p i e\13 responded to t h a t l e t t e r t he next day and says ,14 Thank you fo r your l tt r o f August 15th r e l a t i v e15 to t he above cap t ions . I agree wi th you t h a t t he16 defendant w i l l proba b l y no t accep t your s e t t l e m e n t17 o f f e r . I be l i eve t he s t i c k i n g p o i n t i s your r eques t18 fo r $50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s f ees and c os t s . I do not19 b e l i e v e t h a t the $1000 r e q u e s t each fo r mysel f20 Mr. Clement and Ms. Bloomfie ld - - two o the r people21 i nvolved in t h i s l awsu i t , Your Honor - - i s a22 b a r r i e r to se t t l em en t . Therefore , I sugges t t h a t23 you ask fo r a l e s s e r amount o f f ees and c o s t s .24 And t hen he goes on to say , Given your l a ck o f25 success in t h i s mat te r thus f a r , I sugges t you ask



27/49


Page 271 for 10,000 a t t o r n e y ' s fees and c o s t s . So2 Mr. G i l l e s p i e not only knew t ha t we were s e p a r a t e l y3 nego t i a t ing payment to our law f i rm for a t t o r n e y ' s4 fees and cos t s , he d i r e c t e d to us how to do it5 ow we were success fu l and convinced Arnscot to

pay him 2000 and to pay us 50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s7 fees and cos t s and a se t t l emen t re lea se was prepa red8 t h a t s t a t ed a l l t ha t , which Mr. G i l l e s p i e s igned .9 But a l so we have the c los ing s ta tement t ha t shows

10 t h a t Mr. G i l l e s p i e unders tood t h a t the se t t l emen t11 was for 50,000 to compensate my a t to rneys fo r t h e i r12 c la im aga ins t Arnscot for cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y ' s13 fees .14 Mr. G i l l e s p i e has gone th rough some Herculean15 gymnast ics and gone back to the c o n t r a c t and sa i d ,16 wel l , j u s t a second, if t he cour t d i d n ' t award you17 50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s fees , t hen I should ge t a18 por t ion o f t h a t . And s i nce you t o l d me the cour t19 awarded 50,000 in a t t o r n e y ' s fees and r e a l l y what20 happened was t he re was a se t t l emen t fo r 50,000 in21 a t t o r ney ' s fees , you 've de f rauded me.22 ow t h a t ' s j u s t c razy , Judge . It d o e s n ' t make23 any sense . But the bot tom l i ne on t h i s po in t i s24 t h a t he c a n ' t meet the elements of f raud because he25 c a n ' t r e ly on a f a l s e s ta tement because the



28/49


Page 281 s ta tement he cla ims was f a l s e , t h a t the cour t2 awarded 50,000, was t o l d to him on November 1, 2001,3 t h a t it was 50,000 s e t t l e m e n t by Arnscot to s e t t l e

the c la im fo r cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y s fees and5 c o s t s .6 So he c a n t meet r e l i a n c e . I f he cannot meet7 r e l i ance , h i s house o f ca rds of f raud f a i l s and the8 c la im must be dismissed . But t h a t i s not t he on ly9 reason t h a t the f raud c l a i m must be d i smissed .

10 T h a t s one o f them.11 The o t h e r reasons , as I a d d re s s in the mot ion ,12 a re t h a t you cannot b r i n g a f raud c la im d i sgu i sed as13 a breach o f con t r ac t , and t h a t s what h e s done.14 He s c la iming t h a t we d i d n t pay him what15 t he con t r ac t - we d i d n t t ake h i s a t t o r n e y s fees ,16 what t he con t r ac t says we should have t aken and we17 beached it18 He s a i d under the c o n t r a c t we shou ld have t aken19 the 50,000, added to t he amount t h a t he got and20 then pa id him a por t ion o f t h a t . Now o f course ,21 w e l l t a l k about the r u l e s r e g u l a t i n g the Fl o r i da22 Bar in j u s t a moment.23 But the bot tom l i n e i s t h a t h i s f raud c l a im i s24 b a s i c a l l y t h a t you breached the c o n t r a c t . And under25 the case law, if the a l l e g e d t o r t o r f raud a r i s e s



29/49


Page 29from the same conduct t ha t breaches the cont rac t ,

2 the t o r t or f raud cannot surv ive . T ha t s r ~ 3 Richard Swaebe Inc . , versus Sears World Trade4 Inc . , 639 So.2d 1120-1121; Lewis versus Guthar tz5 428 So.2d 222 and Lake Plac id Holding Company versus6 Paperone 508 So.2d 372. Tha t s a Second DCA case7 from 1987.8 I c i t e d severa l o the r dec i s ions t ha t a l l hold9 tha t when you have a breach of cont rac t , you c a n t

10 c rea te a f raud c la im out of it So if h e s sayingt ha t we defrauded him by breach ing the cont rac t , he

12 gets a breach of con t rac t cla im.13 The other th ing i s the t ha t damages h e s14 claiming15 THE COURT: Economic lo s s ru le .16 MR. RODEMS: Yes s i r . Exact ly .17 The other th ing i s h e s the damages h e s18 claiming in the f raud count are exac t ly the same as19 in the breach of cont rac t . And under RDMH Inc . ,20 versus Dempsey 618 So.2d 794 Flo r ida F i f th DCA21 from 1993 quote An award of compensatory damages22 for both breach of cont rac t and f raud i s erroneous23 where the p l a i n t i f f f a i l s to e s t a b l i s h t ha t he24 sus t a ined compensatory damages based on f raud which25 were in any way separa te or di s t ingu i shab le from the

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-816



30/49


Page 301 compensa tory damage awarded fo r the breach o f2 c o n t r a c t . In o the r words , you c a n ' t sue fo r f r aud3 and c la im your damages a re the same t h ings t h a t4 happened in the breach o f c on t r a c t . So t he f raud5 c la im c a n ' t su rv ive on the a l l e g a t i o n s o f a breach6 o f c on t r a c t .7 Now, Your Honor, as you wel l know, Rule 4-5 .48 o f the r u l e s r e g u l a t i n g t he F lo r ida Bar says a9 l awye r o r law f i rm s h a l l not share l e ga l f ees wi th a

10 non- lawyer . Opinion 60-33 o f the Flo r ida E th ic s11 Opinions , which a re a va i l a b l e on t he Flo r ida Bar12 webs i te , c i t e s Mr. Drinke r , an expe r t on l e ga l13 e t h i c s and says , quote , The only s i t u a t i o n s in14 which a l awyer may p r o p e r l y permi t a c l i e n t to15 r ece ive and r e t a i n f ees pa id by o the r s on accoun t o f16 h i s l e ga l se rv i ce s a re when such payments a re to17 r e imburse the c l i e n t in whole o r in p a r t fo r t he18 c l i e n t ' s l e ga l expenses a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d in t he19 s p e c i f i c mat te r fo r which t hey are pa id .20 Mr. G i l l e s p i e never pa id our law f i rm one penny21 fo r a t t o r n e y ' s f ees and cos t s , not a penny. So when22 we r ece ived $50,000 from Amscot which Amscot,23 G i l l e s p i e , Bloomfie ld , Clement and our law f i rm24 agreed was to pay us fo r our a t t o r n e y ' s f ees in a25 f e e - s h i f t i n g case , fo r us to have given any por t i on



31/49


Page 31of t ha t to Mr. G i l l e s p i e would have v i o l a t ed the

2 ru le s regu la t ing the Flor ida Bar. And t h a t s one o f3 the reasons t ha t the breach o f con t rac t a c t ion must4 f a i l too , because the con t rac t cannot be enforced in5 such a way as to require people to v i o l a t e the law.6 So as f a r as the f raud cla im, you c a n t base7 it - you c a n t base a f raud c la im on a breach of8 c o n t r a c t . T h a t s the economic lo s s ru l e . Second,9 he cannot meet the r e l i a n c e t h ing because he knew

10 when he s igned the c los ing s ta tement t ha t they were11 paying us for the c la im for cour t -awarded a t to rne y s12 fees .13 Besides t ha t , Your Honor, i we had known14 Mr. Gil le sp ie was going to complain a t some l a t e r15 da t e a f t e r every th ing was s igned, sea led and16 de l ive red t ha t t h i s wasn t r e a l l y a cour t -awarded17 fee , we would have had Judge Lazara approve the fee,18 which would have been s imple enough to do, a s imple19 motion with Judge Lazara - we've s e t t l e d t h i s case ,20 t hey ve agreed to pay us 50,000 in fees . Your21 Honor, wi l l you approve t ha t ? He would have sa id ,22 yes . That would have been the end.23 e are be ing shaken down by Mr. Gi l l esp ie .24 T h a t s what s happening here . He's f i l e d a bar25 gr ievance aga ins t me. He's f i l e d t h r ee bar



32/49


Page 32' 1 grievances aga ins t Mr. Cook. He's f i l e d a bar

2 grievance aga ins t my other par tne r Mr. Barker, a l l3 a r i s ing out of t h i s .4 The bottom l i ne , Judge, i s t ha t we represen ted5 t h i s man without a penny from him. At the6 conclusion of the case , under a f e e - s h i f t i ng case,7 the defendant agreed to pay our a t to rne y s fees .8 Mr. Gi l l esp ie has never had to pay a penny of9 a t to rne y s fees .

10 And under the cont rac t - - under the cont rac t ,11 even i f you read it the j aundiced way t ha t12 Mr. Gi l l esp ie does, h e s never had to pay one penny 113 out of hi s 2000 se t t l emen t for a t to rne y s fees or4 14 cos t s . He got to keep 100 percent o f it15 So the bot tom l i ne i s t ha t he c a n t a l l ege a16 breach of cont rac t because the defendant paid our17 a t to rne y s fees , which the cont rac t contemplates .18 Mr. Gi l l esp ie agreed in the c los ing s ta tement to19 them paying our a t t o rne y s fees . Mr. Gi l l esp ie knew20 tha t it was for the se t t l emen t of the claim for21 cour t -awarded a t t o rne y s fees . And the fraud and22 the breach of cont rac t ac t ion aga ins t the law f i rm23 and the f raud ac t ion aga ins t Mr. Cook, j u s t l i ke the24 breach of cont rac t aga ins t Mr. Cook, should be - - a25 judgment should be gran ted on the p lead ings .- Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166

d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


33/49


Page 33MR BAUER: Your Honor, f i r s t o f a l l

2 THE COURT: Let me ask t h i s : And we a re still3 on t h i s o r i g i n a l compla in t ?4 MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.5 THE COURT: Count 1 asks fo r damages o f a6 littl over 6000.7 MR BAUER: Yes.8 THE COURT: Count 2 i s a f r aud count but asks9 fo r p u n i t i v e damages.

10 MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: Which you c a n ' t ge t I 'm ignor ing

12 t h a t .MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.

14 MR RODEMS: I b e l i e v e t h a t was u l t i m a t e l y15 s t r i c k e n by Judge Niel son .16 MR BAUER: Th e re ' s been a l a t e r motion t h a t17 was f i l e d pro se to t r y to comply wi th the18 r equ i rements t h a t a re neces sa ry to do p u n i t i v e .19 THE COURT: T h a t ' s f i n e . But a t t h i s p o in t20 Count 2 asks fo r the same 6000-p lus , c o r r e c t ?21 MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.22 THE COURT: So why s h o u l d n ' t I dismiss t h i s fo r23 a l a ck o f su b j e c t ma t t e r j u r i sd i c t i o n ?24 MR BAUER: F i r s t of a l l , Your Honor, because25 the su b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n goes to what



34/49


Page 341 THE COURT: Amount.2 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor what a l l the3 amounts a re . But t a l so goes and we r a i s e d t h i s4 l a s t t ime. There s been a counter compla in t for an5 amount in excess o f 15.6 THE COURT: So we would be back here any way.7 MR BAUER: Okay.8 THE COURT: So we covered t h i s .9 MR BAUER: T h a t s been dea l t with .

10 Along those l i ne s , the r e s t o f t hese i s sueshave a l ready been dea l t with befo re by previous

12 cour t t ha t was on t h i s i s sue in a motion to d i smiss ,13 the motion to dismiss for f a i l u r e to s t a t e cause o f14 ac t ions , a l so inc luded the economic lo s s ru le and15 other a l l ega t i ons . The cour t denied those on the16 grounds t ha t t found d i s t i n c t and sepa ra t e causes17 o f ac t ions to be placed .18 I was not presen t fo r t ha t hear ing , so I m not19 r e a l l y sure I mean t he o rde r d o e s n t a r t i c u l a t e20 exac t ly what those f i nd i ngs were. But t h i s r e a l l y21 appears to be an a t tempt to do noth ing more than22 appe l la te review with in the c i r c u i t cour t j u s t23 s imply because counse l has go t t en a d i f f e r e n t judge24 to be able to argue the same i n f ron t o f .25 Nonethe less , I be l i eve the con t rac t and f raud



35/49


36/49


Page 361 a determina t ion whether o r not t h e r e s anyth ing2 cont ra ry to what the p l a i n t i f f has sa id .3 So t he re was the breach of con t rac t t ha t4 happened f i r s t i s t ha t they d i d not pursue the

ac t ion . To cover up t ha t breach o f con t rac t ,6 Mr. Cook commit ted f raud by ly ing to Mr. G i l l e s p i e7 as to how t hese fees carne about . He - and it s8 c l ea r from the compla in t s and the i s sues t ha t he9 never wavered.

10 And even an argument t ha t was forwarded11 before t h i s - t h a t s been forwarded befo re t h i s12 cour t i s the fees c o u ld n t be - t ha t amount, t ha t

,13 60,000 c o u ld n t be - or the 50,000 t ha t was14 a t t o r n e y s fees c o u ld n t be sha red wi th the15 p l a i n t i f f s , t h a t s not t rue . Because if they had16 nego t i a t ed - in s tead of t r y in g to get a high17 a t t o r n e y s fees award, if they had nego t i a t ed and18 sa id , look, t h i s wi l l be nego t i a t ed - t h i s i s the19 amount t ha t you are w i l l i n g to pay to s e t t l e t h i s2 case - you are w i l l i n g to pay 60,000 you know,21 we are not t a lk ing about how it s div ided up in22 a t t o r n e y s fees . That w i l l be handled pursuant to23 our con t rac t wi th our c l i e n t . e won t pu t our24 i n t e r e s t s above our c l i e n t . I t very wel l could25 have - the 60,000 could have been sha red more

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 80404f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe


37/49


Page 371 s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the p l a i n t i f f s .2 For the counsel to a l l e g e t h a t it c o u ld n t be3 t h a t s the problem. T h a t s f a l s e . T h a t s the f raud4 t ha t was commit ted upon the c l i e n t . It could be and

it could be done so t ha t it would be in compl iance6 with the r u l e s o f e t h i c s .7 I make se t t l emen t s a l l the t ime where t h e r e s8 prov i s i on for a t t o r n e y s fees in the s t a t u t e s t h a t9 say t hey would be awarded. And we say , look,

10 t hese we add e ve ry th ing up. Forge t t i ng what the11 d i f f e r e n t sec t ions a re , t hese a re a t the very12 minimum what we t h ink we a re going to h i t you with .13 You go ahead and - - you know what do you t h i nk t h i s14 i s going to be. And they say , wel l , t h a t s a number15 we can swallow.16 It d o e s n t mat t e r how you add those numbers up17 if the o the r s i de in a se t t l emen t agreement agrees18 to a s pec i f i c amount.19 THE COURT: So I t h i nk you a re conceding t ha t20 under these fac t s , if t h e r e s f raud , it s f raud in21 the per formance of t he con t r ac t ?22 MR BAUER: No. It s performance in the - the23 per formance o f the c o n t r a c t was i n i t i a l l y to happen24 wi th - they commit ted f raud excuse me. They25 breached the c o n t r a c t i n its performance in g e t t i n g

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


38/49


Page 38the nego t ia t ions .

2 THE COURT: Right .3 MR BAUER: Once the n e g o t i a t i o n s were s e t t l e d ,4 t he re was a f raud committed to procure the5 m odi f i ca t ion of the agreement . The modi f i ca t i on o f6 the agreement would be the se t t l emen t .7 There s ac t ua l l y two d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t s .8 There was the or i g i na l con t rac t t ha t was breached9 then t he re was a f raud committed to procure the

10 second agreement the se t t l emen t agreement insaying t h i s i s what i s f a i r and going to be

12 d i s t r i b u t e d .13 As fa r as whether o r not he agreed by saying14 these a re the c la ims , if you read it - it took me15 severa l t imes reading it. I was cons t an t ly16 confused . I c a n t f i nd awards o f a t t o r n e y s fees .17 I c a n t f ind awards o f a t t o r n e y s fees . And I18 f i na l l y caught t h e i r argument t ha t they are saying19 it was a c la im o f a t t o r n e y s fees t ha t - and it20 says c la im o f cour t -awarded - pas t t ense , awarded21 not c la im for a t t o r n e y s fees t ha t would be award.22 T h e r e s no fu tu re . The re s cour t -awarded. T h a t s a23 pas t t ense . It s very easy to unders tand how a24 l aype rson would confuse t ha t s i t u a t i o n and t h ink25 t ha t t he re had been awarded a t t o r n e y s fees .



39/49


Page 391 It s paramount wi t h i n the a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t2 r e l a t i o n s h ip t ha t the a t t o r n e y i s supposed to make3 sure t ha t the c l i e n t unde r s t a nds . I be l i eve ,4 t h a t o r my c l i e n t be l i eves t ha t t h i s was an

i n t e n t i o n a l mis leading . It was - the f a c t s a re6 s u f f i c i e n t in t h i s to , a re a l l eged , to see t h a t7 t he re was a fa l s e s ta tement t ha t was made. There8 were no cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y s fees o r we9 a l l e g e t ha t it was a f a l s e s t a t emen t . And t h a t s

10 a l l we have to do. We ve a l l eged t ha t t h e r e s a11 fa l s e s t a t e m e n t . And it w i l l be up to a j u ry to12 decide whether t he re was a f a l s e s ta tement .13 Mr. G i l l e s p i e d i d r e ly on it. He s igned the14 agreement . I t was to the de t r im e n t because if t he re15 h a d n t been t ha t f raud , t he re would have been the16 p o s s i b i l i t y t ha t he cou ld have go t t en a l a r ge r17 percen tage o f t ha t p a r t i c u l a r se t t l emen t , o r he18 could have r e a l i z e d the problems t ha t were going on19 and he would have r e t a in e d o t h e r counsel to pursue20 the f u l l and e n t i r e a c t i o n and go a f t e r the o r i g i n a l21 awards.22 Another i s sue to po in t ou t the f a c t t h i s i s for3 t h e i r c la im of cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y s fees , t he re

24 was no c la im. The c la im had a l ready been determined25 by the cour t , denied . It d i d n t e x i s t any more .


d6c892ea8040 4f6babf2c8e7692fdbe4


40/49


Page 40Yes t he re was an appea l ou t s t and i ng , but t ha t

2 d o e s n t r e s u r r e c t any c la im. The on ly t h i ng t h a t s3 going to r e s u r r e c t a c la im i s an o v e r r u l i n g by the4 a p p e l l a t e cour t . A c la im no l onge r e x i s t once it s5 been denied , even if it s on appea l . So in6 a s s e r t i n g t he re e x i s t e d a c la im fo r a t t o r n e y s fees7 i s f a l s e . It - it s not t h e r e .8 And so t ha t f a l s e s ta tement was - and an9 a t t o rney , a savvy a t to rney should r e a l i z e the

10 d i s t i n c t i o n between those , be a b le to forward t ha tto the c l i e n t , l e t them make s u re t ha t t hey

12 unders t and w h a t s going on. It was t h e i r i n t e n t i o n13 t h a t he r e l i e d on t ha t s ta tement , t h a t t he re was14 cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y s f ee s . He was confused and15 he was damaged by t ha t .16 And I t h i nk t ha t t he re a re d i s t i n c t and17 s e p a r a t e damages because t h e r e s going to be the18 breach o f con t r ac t to s t a r t with which w i l l go19 i n i t i a l l y to the they breached the c o n t r a c t and20 it would be towards the or i g i na l cla im, the o r i g i n a l21 case t ha t was f i l e d .22 Then the f raud i s going to be af te rwards , a f t e r23 the or i g i na l c la im had been l o s t and t he re was an24 a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r a c t t ha t was made. There was f raud25 procured on t ha t . And t h e r e s going to be we



41/49


Page 41bel ieve we w i l l be ab l e to forward enough evidence

2 t o a l so inc lude pun i t ive damages which wi l l br ing3 t h i s up to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher amount. I do4 be l i eve t ha t the amounts, while d i f f i c u l t to5 d is t ingu i sh , can be d is t ingu i shed .6 THE COURT: But we d o n t know t ha t ye t .7 MR BAUER: Si r?8 THE COURT: We d o n t know t ha t yet , what9 add i t iona l damages t he re might be fo r the f raud .

10 Espec ia l ly s i nce they h a v e n t been a l leged , r i g h t ?11 I mean, Mr. G i l l e s p i e was very s p e c i f i c in h is12 compla int t ha t he th inks for the f raud count he13 ought to get pun i t ive damages in the amount of th ree14 t imes h is lo s s o f littl over 6000, r igh t? I mean,15 t h a t s what he sa id .16 MR BAUER: That i s what he sa id .17 THE COURT: Again, t h i s i s a judgment on the18 pleadings .19 MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor.20 THE COURT: Well , again , before I make a ru l i n g21 on a judgment on the p leadings , I want to be22 convinced t ha t we can t ake the approach t ha t the23 defendants have sugges ted, bas i ca l l y ignor ing the24 answer which denies c e r t a i n l y fac tua l a l l ega t i ons .25 That was always my unders tanding , t ha t we come

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6cB92eaB040 4f6babf2cBe7692fdbe4


42/49


Page 421 in here , Judge t hey have admi t t ed t h e r e i s a2 con t r ac t and we have admi t t ed t h a t in our answer and3 t h a t ' s why we t h a t ' s why we win as opposed to ,4 you know p ic k ing and choos ing in the answer bu t5 t hen coming i n t o t he he a r ing and say , Judge i gnore6 our answer j u s t look a t the compla in t .7 Well t h a t ' s what we do in a mot ion to d i smiss8 s t age . And a judgment on t he p l e a d ings , I always9 took the p o s i t i o n - and I never had it t h i s i s

10 the first t ime I ' v e ever had t h i s argued to me in 17years , Judge , you know i gnore - the - a ns w e r

12 approach.13 MR RODEMS: I ll be happy to submit a14 memorandum o f law to you.15 THE COURT: Or j u s t if a coup le of the c a se s16 say t ha t , t hen t h a t ' s f ine . But I want it17 e x p l i c i t l y in the f a c t s o r somewhere in an op in ion18 t h a t says , wel l , even though the answer den ied19 c e r t a i n f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s , if t he defendan t wants20 to ge t judgment on the p l ead i ngs , we can i gnore the21 answer and go back to the compla in t .22 MR RODEMS: I ll f i nd t h a t fo r you bu t I23 would l i k e to respond to one t h i ng Mr. Bauer sa id .24 And t h a t i s he s a i d the c la im fo r cour t -awarded25 a t t o r n e y ' s fees disappea red when the c la im was



43/49

First-Choice Reporting Services Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com

Page 431 d i smissed , and t ha t i s absurd on its face . Because2 i t ha t were the c s ~ no c la im cou ld ever be3 s e t t l e d once the4 THE COURT: I t h i n k what h e s I d o n t t h i nk5 h e s denying the f a c t t h a t t h e r e s t he re i s a6 c la im ou t t he re t h a t s on appea l t h a t has been7 d i smissed o r ru l ed on and t ha t t ha t - t h e r e f o r e8 t he re c a n t be any se t t l emen t . I mean, t h i s happens9 probab ly every day in t h i s s t a t e and in the count ry .

10 MR BAUER: I agree .11 THE COURT: But I t h ink what h e s say ing i s12 t ha t t ha t would - t h i s l aype rson would have been13 no t have unders tood t h a t t h a t was the case , I guess .14 MR RODEMS: Well , the on ly problem wi th t ha t15 i s h i s c l i e n t s own wr i t ings and the communicat ions16 t h a t Mr. G i l l e s p i e a t t ached be l i e t h i s .17 Mr. G i l l e s p i e unders tood t ha t we a re s e p a r a t e l y18 nego t i a t ing se t t l emen t o f Mr. G i l le s p i e s c la ims and19 the c la ims fo r cour t -awarded a t t o r n e y s f ees . He20 unders tood t ha t . He says it in the c l os i ng21 s ta tement and he acknowledges it in the l e t t e r he22 wrote to Mr. Cook fo l lowing Mr. Cook s l e t t e r to23 him.24 MR BAUER: Those a r e a l l f ac tua l a s s e r t i o n s25 t ha t have to be determined, and t h a t s what the f ac t

Orlando Tampa Melbourne Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166d6c892ea 8040 4f6b abf2 c8e7692fdbe4


44/49


Page 441 f inde r i s fo r . What exac t ly do t hese l e t t e r s mean?2 THE COURT: Right . Well , he was f i n i s h in g up.3 MR RODEMS: And the po in t i s t ha t the case law4 i s c l ea r t ha t when you a re t o l d i n wr i t i ng what the5 t rue s ta tements a re , you c a n ' t l a t e r say, wel l , he

t o l d me someth ing d i f f e r e n t . And t h a t ' s what7 Mr. G i l l e s p i e says in the complain t - not what8 Mr. Bauer ' s sp i n i s on t today . Mr. G i l l e s p i e says9 in the compla int , I was t o l d t ha t t he cour t awarded

10 50,000 for a t to rne y ' s fees and the cour t d i d not ,11 so I was def rauded . But the wr i t ings t ha t12 Mr. G i l l e s p i e a t t ached shows t ha t he knows t ha t t h i s13 was a se t t l emen t nego t ia t ion while the case was on14 appea l .

15 Tha t ' s what t was. So he c a n ' t meet the16 r e l i a n c e . He c a n ' t say, I r e l i e d on a fa l s e17 s t a t emen t , when the t r u t h was t o l d to him. And as18 f a r as Mr. G i l l e s p i e be ing confused, t ha t does not19 c rea te a f raud . Fraud i s the i n t e n t on the pa r ty20 making the s t a t ements to dece ive . How much i n t en t21 can t he re be to def raud Mr. G i l l e s p i e in saying on22 the c los ing s ta tement , here , Mr. G i l l e s p i e , s ign23 t h i s . And the pa r t t ha t he s igned says , I24 acknowledge t ha t Arnscot s e p a ra t e ly pa i d my a t to rneys25 50,000 to compensate my a t to rneys fo r t h e i r c la im



45/49


Page 45aga ins t Arnscot for cour t -awarded fees and c o s t s .

2 There s no s ta tement in here t ha t Arnscot was3 orde r by the cour t t o pay 50,000 in fees and t h i s4 bus iness about , wel l , t h a t s in the pas t t ense - 5 c la im fo r cour t -awarded f ee s . The cour t awards fees6 if t h e r e s a p e t i t i o n for fees a f t e r a judgment. We7 never got t he re because the case was s e t t l e d in the8 i n t e r im a t Mr. G i ll e s p i e s , by h i s own com pl a i n t s9 a l l ega t i ons , behes t . S e t t l e t h i s c la im. I need the

10 money. L e t s get t h i s done. Lower your loweryour r eques t for a t t o r n e y s fees , so t ha t we can get

12 t h i s done.13 THE COURT: T h a t s in the p leadings?14 MR RODEMS: T h a t s a l l in the p leadings , Your15 Honor. And l i ke I sa id , I ll be happy to submit a16 memorandum o f law to you on the i s sue o f whether we17 can ignore the answer and focus only on the18 a l l ega t i ons of the c o m p l ~ n t and I ll h igh l igh t19 t hese o the r p o s i t i o n s for you.20 But, you know, we be l i eve t ha t if you wi l l21 ca r e f u l l y cons i de r t h i s mat te r , you w i l l see t ha t ,22 you know, Mr. G i l l e s p i e i s ba s i c a l l y t ry ing to shake23 us down.24 And a t some po in t , somebody's got to say enough25 i s enough. And we a re hoping t ha t , you know, the



46/49


Page 46cour t o f law, where j u s t i c e pr eva i l s , where equ i ty

2 i s , where the p a r t i e s a re supposed to be equa l , t ha t3 somebody i s not going to say , Poor Mr. G i l l e s p i e ,4 pro se , he d i d n ' t know what he was doing, even5 though he wrote t hese l e t t e r s and he s a i d a l l t hese6 th ings .7 You know, we have - Judge, we have s u f f e r e d8 bar gr ievance a f t e r ba r g r i e va nc e . We have9 su f f e red we have had to defend t h i s c i r c u i t bench10 on two d i s t i n g u i s h e d judges because of t he t h i ngs

t h a t Mr. G i l l e s p i e has pu t i n to t h i s record . At a12 c e r t a in po i n t we need to look a t the four c orne r s o f13 t h i s compla in t and say does t h i s s t and o r does it14 f a l l and not g ive him the b e n e f i t o f the doubt15 because he i s an ind iv idua l . It s j u s t not r i gh t .16 THE COURT: Al l r i g h t . And I assume if you a re17 success fu l a t the Second D i s t r i c t l e v e l18 MR RODEMS: It would moot t h i s .19 THE COURT: Right .20 MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .21 THE COURT: So I am i n c l i n e d to - on the22 ba lance o f t h i s to wai t and see what t hey do.23 MR RODEMS: Okay.24 THE COURT: I d o n ' t want to i s s u e an orde r t ha t25 could be g i l d i n g a l i l y , if you a r e success fu l .



47/49


Page 47MR RODEMS: All r i g h t .

2 THE COURT: So it s not au tomat ic t ha t we3 ge t - sometimes we do. They a re p r e t t y good on the4 appea ls , bu t on c e r t s we d o n t always ge t - I ll be5 checking the Law Weekly bu t as soon as e i t h e r one6 of you get s the dec i s ion , kind o f shoot me a copy.7 MR BAUER: We w i l l forward it.8 THE COURT: And I ll jump on the r e s t of it.9 MR RODEMS: All r i gh t . But a t l e a s t in te rms

10 of Cook may I prepare an orde r fo r tha t?THE COURT: You may.

12 MR RODEMS: And shou ld t he o rde r say t h a t the13 balance o f the motion wi l l be taken under advisement14 pending the w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i ?15 THE COURT: Yes.16 MR RODEMS: One f i na l th ing befo re we qui t ,17 t ha t r e a l l y on ly a f f e c t s the i s sues t ha t a re ra i s ed18 on the judgment o f t he p l ead i ngs , bu t the o the r19 t h i ngs t ha t a re pending in the case , such as our20 en t i t l emen t for a t t o r n e y s fees , those would not in21 any way be s tayed , would they?22 THE COURT: Where a re we on t h a t ?23 MR RODEMS: Well we j u s t h a v e n t f i l e d our24 fee p e t i t i o n . There s a l r eady been two orde r s25 en t e red e n t i t l i n g us to a t to r n e y s fees . I j u s t



48/49


Page 481 want to make sure t ha t the remainder of the case i s2 not s tayed pending outcome o f the c e r t i o r a r i .3 THE COURT: I d o n t see any reason to .4 MR RODEMS: Okay. Thank you.S THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.6 Proceedings conc luded a t 11:22 a.m.)789

101112

1 314lS1617181920212223242S



49/49

. , > .,.. .CERTIFICATE OF ~ P Q R ; T E ; R

3

4 ;STATE'OFF'LORIDA5 COUNtry' c HILLSBQROUGH6:

-.9 . ce r t i fy . tha t I was authorized toaf id did s tenographical ly10' r ,epbtthe foregoing proceediIl,gs ahd tha t the tranf;3cript11' p ~ g e s t h r o u g h 49 is a t rue r ~ c o r a : o f the p r o c e e d i n g s ~ 1213 I further ce , r t i fy t l ia : t Ia lh n o t a re, lative,14 a.ttorney i or courts'el of any' of the' par t i e s , nor15 . ,am' .a l; e1 a,tiv e o r employee of 'any

transcript judge barton 10.33 am nov 30 2007

Documents