Florida Jury Awards $82K in Legal Fee Dispute Case

Case Background

This case involved a contract and billing dispute between PWBC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and The Manors Club, Inc., a Florida homeowners' association. The dispute centred around unpaid legal fees allegedly owed under a retainer agreement signed between The Manors Club and law firm Katzman Chandler, P.A. (KCPA). When the firm withdrew from representation in October 2020, unpaid balances remained. KCPA later assigned its claim to PWBC, which filed suit to recover the money. The case was tried in a Florida court and concerned four civil claims: breach of contract, open account, account stated, and unjust enrichment.

The cause that led to the legal dispute

PWBC asserted that The Manors Club signed a retainer agreement with KCPA on May 4, 2020, for ongoing legal services. KCPA had provided those services until October 14, 2020. After terminating the engagement, KCPA transferred its right to collect the unpaid fees to PWBC. PWBC claimed that The Manors Club received the legal work, never disputed the billing, and then refused to pay. They maintained that the association knowingly benefited from the services while failing to meet its contractual responsibilities.

Injuries suffered

PWBC claimed a financial loss stemming from the unpaid legal work. The law firm had performed the services, issued invoices, and advanced costs on behalf of the association. Despite this, no payment was received, resulting in a cumulative loss of $82,457.34. The Plaintiff alleged that this amount covered the unpaid fees, interest, and out-of-pocket expenses related to the legal services. Interest on the unpaid balance continued to accrue.

Damages Sought

PWBC sought full recovery of $82,457.34 along with contractual interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. They pointed to terms in the original agreement that required the client to pay all collection-related expenses, including legal fees. The Plaintiff maintained that all charges were properly billed and documented, and that no objections were ever raised at the time the services were rendered or billed.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

PWBC’s legal strategy focused on proving that a valid agreement existed, that services were performed under that agreement, and that The Manors Club failed to pay despite accepting the benefit of the work. They emphasised that the association had not disputed any of the invoices at the time they were issued, which constituted acceptance of the charges under Florida law.

The Manors Club challenged the validity of the agreement, arguing that it was never properly authorised. The defense claimed that the association's board did not vote to approve legal representation and therefore the contract had no binding effect. Even if a contract existed, they argued the charges were excessive, unsupported, or inflated. They also claimed the law firm’s conduct amounted to unclean hands and that PWBC should not recover based on that alleged misconduct.

The jury heard evidence about the course of dealings between the firm and the association, including invoice records, email communications, and the retainer terms. Both sides argued over whether the billing was fair and whether The Manors Club acted in bad faith by failing to raise objections during the service period.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): PWBC, LLC

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Joshua E. Rasco,| Katzman Chandler

Defendant(s): The Manors Club, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): John H. Richards

Key Arguments by Counsel

Counsel for PWBC framed the case as a straightforward matter of unpaid bills for services that were performed and accepted. They stressed that the association failed to raise any objections while benefiting from the firm’s representation. Defense counsel questioned the legitimacy of the agreement and argued that PWBC was trying to collect on a contract that had never been properly authorised.

Claims Asserted

Breach of Contract
PWBC argued that a signed retainer agreement existed and that the law firm performed legal work by its terms. The Manors Club received the benefit of these services and failed to pay, breaching the contract.

Open Account
PWBC also claimed that an open account existed due to the continuing nature of the transactions, invoicing, and balances that remained unpaid. They presented itemised bills issued over several months to demonstrate this ongoing relationship.

Account Stated
According to PWBC, The Manors Club had received account statements and made no objection, which under Florida law constituted agreement to the balance due.

Unjust Enrichment
Even without a valid contract, PWBC argued the association still benefited from the legal work. The Plaintiff claimed it would be fundamentally unfair to allow The Manors Club to retain the benefit of those services without paying for them.

Defense Arguments

The Manors Club denied the existence of an enforceable contract. It argued that proper board approval had never been obtained and that KCPA had failed to confirm whether their engagement complied with the association's bylaws. They raised defenses like failure to mitigate damages and disputed the amount of fees claimed. Additionally, they invoked the doctrine of unclean hands, alleging that the law firm had acted improperly by proceeding without valid authorisation. The defense also opposed the request for attorney’s fees because they were not permitted under the open account or unjust enrichment theories.

Jury Verdict

On April 16, 2025, the jury ruled in favour of PWBC on all counts. It found that a valid and enforceable contract had been formed, that legal services were properly rendered, and that The Manors Club had failed to fulfil its payment obligations. The jury determined that PWBC suffered damages and awarded the full claimed amount of $82,457.34. They also found the association liable under theories of open account, account stated, and unjust enrichment, concluding that The Manors Club had knowingly accepted and retained the benefits of legal representation without paying for them.

The verdict affirmed that the assignment from KCPA to PWBC was valid, the retainer agreement had legal effect, and the Defendant’s failure to pay could not be excused by technical objections or after-the-fact disputes.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com