Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 6, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1296
Lower Tribunal No. 19-17308
________________
Alberto Yordano Corredor, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
George Nichols, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig,
Judge.
The Ferro Law Firm, P.A., and Simon Ferro, for appellants.
Coffey Burlington, P.L., Jeffrey B. Crockett and Paul J. Schwiep, for
appellees, Special Master Antonio Argiz and Coffey Burlington, P.L.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Albert Corredor Gomez and Alberto Yordano Corredor (the
“Corredors”) appeal a trial court’s final order for fees and costs in favor of
Coffey Burlington, P.L. (“Burlington”), counsel for the court appointed
receiver, Antonio Argiz. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).
We affirm the trial court’s rulings in all respects, except one. We reverse as
to the trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of nonparty Burlington.
The underlying case involved a now defunct, for-profit vocational
school, Censa International College LLC (“Censa”) located in Miami
Gardens. The property was owned by the Corredors, Yezid Arango and
George Nichols. The Corredors filed a complaint against Arango and
Nichols1 for a permanent injunction preventing the sale of the property,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and to quiet title. In response,
Arango and Nichols filed a motion to appoint a receiver alleging the
Corredors failed to pay the mortgage, allowed the property to go into
foreclosure and were using tuition fees for their own self-interests. The trial
court granted the motion and appointed Antonio Argiz as the receiver. After
default final judgment was entered in favor of the Corredors, the services of
the receiver were terminated by agreed order. The receiver filed a motion
1
Included as parties in the underlying suit were Censa and North American
International Enterprises, LLC, a special purpose entity of Censa.
2
for fees and costs incurred by himself, and the court approved professionals
retained by him, Morrison Brown Argiz & Farra, LLC (“MBAF”) and
Burlington. The trial court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing on the
motion for fees and costs and granted the receiver’s motion awarding the
receiver and MBAF $65,363.11 in fees and costs and legal fees for
Burlington’s work in the amount of $30,215.07. The trial court however,
entered final judgment directly in favor of nonparty Burlington for the total
amount of the two awards for $95,578.18.
We affirm the entirety of the substantive rulings incorporated in the final
judgment, however reverse because “[e]ntering a judgment against a
nonparty is fundamental error.” Norville v. Bellsouth Advert. & Publ’g Corp.,
664 So. 2d 16, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). While a receiver is entitled to
compensation which includes a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees,
Burlington is not a party to the underlying suit despite being the court
appointed counsel for the receiver. See Se. Bank, N.A. v. Ingrassia,
562 So.
2d 718, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); In re Fredcris, Inc.,
108 So. 2d 901, 904
(Fla. 3d DCA 1959). We therefore solely remand for entry of an amended
final judgment in favor of the receiver, Antonio Argiz.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part, Remanded with instructions.
3
