Filed: Jul. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14907 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60014-JIC DAVID B. MURSTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NICK A. CAPORELLA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (July 21, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: David Mursten appeals the summary judg
Summary: Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14907 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60014-JIC DAVID B. MURSTEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NICK A. CAPORELLA, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (July 21, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: David Mursten appeals the summary judgm..
More
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14907
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60014-JIC
DAVID B. MURSTEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NICK A. CAPORELLA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 21, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Mursten appeals the summary judgment in favor of Nick Caporella
and against Mursten’s complaint of breach of contract. Mursten, a lawyer, sought
to enforce an alleged contract to pay him $4 million in stock for services
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 2 of 8
performed in anticipation of the sale of National Beverage Corporation, of which
Nick A. Caporella was the majority stockholder. The district court ruled that the
alleged contract, which was not in writing or signed by Caporella, would violate
Rule 4–1.8(a) Regulating the Florida Bar and would be unenforceable. After
careful review, we affirm.
Mursten is a member of the Florida bar and provides “strategic planning”
services for business organizations. Between 2006 and 2008, Mursten served as
assistant counsel for Corporate Management Advisors, Inc., an entity wholly
owned by Caporella. Mursten befriended Caporella, and Caporella purportedly
fashioned the oral employment contract to “set aside wealth” for Mursten.
Mursten alleged that Caporella devised the contract before daybreak on
September 6, 2010, while they were meeting in the lobby of The Ritz Carlton in
Fort Lauderdale. Caporella asked Mursten to “be available on a 24 hour, seven[]
day a week basis” to provide “advice and counsel” for the potential sale of
National Beverage and to “perform any other task requested by Caporella, for [his]
benefit . . . [and that of] his controlled entities.” In exchange, Caporella allegedly
offered to pay Mursten the lesser of $10 million or 2 percent of the sales price
when the sale occurred, or if “no deal [was] ultimately reached,” to transfer to
Mursten $4 million of Caporella’s shares in National Beverage and cash sufficient
to pay any related income taxes. Mursten alleged that he accepted the offer, which
2
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 3 of 8
he referred to as the “Dr. Pepper Deal,” and that Caporella later refused to execute
a written employment agreement.
Mursten purportedly performed a myriad of services for Caporella. Between
September 4 and 6, 2010, Mursten “worked intensely . . . [with Caporella]
regarding the offer” to purchase National Beverage. Mursten also “work[ed] to get
a competitor . . . to [submit a competing] bid”; “advis[ed] Caporella on strategic
steps [to] increase the [sales] price”; “recommend[ed] an investment banking firm
to . . . [use] in the negotiations”; “participat[ed] in due diligence . . . and other
strategy meetings”; and “provid[ed] analysis, advice[,] and counsel on various
strategic and tactical issues . . . .” Unrelated to the sale, Mursten “provid[ed] advice
and assistance to Caporella in the potential purchase of various real estate
properties in Florida, Mexico, New Hampshire and New York”; “serv[ed] as one
of two trustees of . . . a grantor trust”; “review[ed] [a purchase] agreement between
Caporella and his brother”; provided “advice and counsel on SEC disclosure
issues,” “maintenance options for . . . [Caporella’s corporate] jet,” “wealth
management and estate issues,” and “an investment opportunity in a medical
startup venture”; and “purchas[ed] a new Mercedes for Caporella.”
Caporella paid Murstein for at least some of his services. Mursten received a
check of $28,200 for his work with Caporella between September 4 and 6, 2010, a
“special real estate project,” “Lawyer management and trust planning,” and
3
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 4 of 8
“Recruiting, nurses and companion.” Mursten also received a check of $49,548 for
“estate planning” and “real estate” services, purchasing Caporella’s “Vehicle,” and
a “New York Project.”
By June 2011, negotiations terminated for the sale of National Beverage. In
October 2011, Caporella said that he would complete the Dr. Pepper Deal by
transferring $4 million in stock to Mursten within one year. In November 2011,
Mursten received a check for $40,000 and thanked Caporella for the “excessive
and generous check” as “measured against the specific, identifiable value created.”
Later that month, Mursten and Caporella had a disagreement and ended their
relationship.
Mursten sued Caporella for breach of contract. Caporella disclaimed any
knowledge of the Dr. Pepper Deal and moved for summary judgment. Caporella
argued that the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable as “an impermissible,
unwritten contingency fee agreement” and “an impermissible unwritten business
transaction with a client” that would violate the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
Mursten disavowed having a lawyer-client relationship with Caporella, but
Caporella submitted a transcript of Mursten’s deposition during which he
authenticated a document that described his legal work for Caporella. The
document stated that, in 2010, Mursten “Coordinated revision of Motion for
Summary Judgment,” “Reviewed draft motion,” “Identified inconsistencies,”
4
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 5 of 8
Revised motion to incorporate [Caporella’s] ideas,” and “added other declarations
to Motion.” Those tasks involved a motion for summary judgment filed on
September 3, 2010, three days before Mursten accepted the Dr. Pepper Deal.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Caporella. “[E]ven
accepting Mursten’s contention that he and Caporella agreed to the Dr. Pepper
Deal,” the district court ruled that “Mursten cannot enforce the oral agreement that
would entitle him to a portion of Caporella’s stock in [National Beverage].” The
district court determined that the alleged contract, like the oral contingent fee
agreement in Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995), would be
void because it would “violate the requirements” of Rule 4–1.8(a) Regulating the
Florida Bar and would be “unenforceable as a matter of public policy.” Mursten
would have violated Rule 4–1.8(a) by “enter[ing] into a business transaction with a
client or knowingly acquir[ing] an ownership, possessory, security, or other
pecuniary interest adverse to a client” without “fully disclos[ing] and transmit[ting]
in writing . . . [a description of] the transaction and terms on which [he] acquires
the interest”; giving “advi[ce] in writing of the desirability of seeking . . . the
advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction”; and obtaining “informed
consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction.”
R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4–1.8(a)(1)–(3).
5
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 6 of 8
We review de novo a summary judgment and view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmovant. Alliance Metals, Inc., of Atlanta v. Hinely Indus.,
Inc., 222 F.3d 895, 897 (11th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate when
the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The district court correctly determined that the alleged contract would
violate Rule 4–1.8(a) Regulating the Florida Bar. Even if we were to assume that
Mursten and Caporella agreed to the alleged Dr. Pepper Deal, Mursten would have
entered a business transaction to provide legal services in exchange for stock in
Caporella’s business, National Beverage, without recording the essential terms of
or obtaining Caporella’s assent to the transaction. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4–1.8
cmt. on business transactions between client and lawyer (requiring compliance
with Rule 4–1.8(a) “when the lawyer accepts an interest in the client’s business or
other nonmonetary property as payment for all or part of a fee”); The Fla. Bar v.
Doherty, 94 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 2012) (sanctioning a lawyer who provided legal and
financial investment services for violating Rule 4–1.8(a)). Mursten argues that he
was not Caporella’s lawyer, but Mursten provided “advice and counsel” to
Caporella; Mursten stated in an email sent to another lawyer in January 2011 that
he was “an attorney for Nick A. Caporella”; and Mursten testified that he
performed legal work for Caporella. Mursten’s later declaration, in which he stated
6
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 7 of 8
that he “was not practicing as a lawyer for any clients” before the Dr. Pepper Deal
and that he and Caporella “had no attorney-client relationship,” is inconsistent with
his earlier deposition testimony and failed to create a genuine issue of material fact
to defeat summary judgment. See Van T. Junkins & Associates, Inc. v. U.S. Indus.,
Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657 (11th Cir. 1984).
The district court did not err when it entered summary judgment against
Mursten’s complaint of breach of contract. The disclosure and recording
requirements in Rule 4–1.8(a) serve the public interest by thwarting “overreaching
when [a] lawyer participates in a business, property, or financial transaction with a
client,” R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4–1.8 cmt. on business transactions between client
and lawyer. Overreaching is particularly of concern when a lawyer seeks to
enforce an agreement to acquire stock worth millions of dollars in a lucrative
business of a client who is also a personal friend. And the Supreme Court of
Florida has held that a fee contract between a lawyer and a client that “fails to
adhere to the[] requirements [of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar] is against
public policy and is not enforceable by the member of The Florida Bar who has
violated the rule.” Chandris, 668 So. 2d at 186; see also Foodtown, Inc. of
Jacksonville v. Argonaut Ins. Co.,
102 F.3d 483, 485 (11th Cir. 1996) (refusing to
recognize an oral fee agreement that violated Rule 4–1.5(f)). Because the alleged
Dr. Pepper Deal would have violated the express requirements of and purposes for
7
Case: 14-14907 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Page: 8 of 8
Rule 4–1.8(a), the district court did not err in determining that the alleged contract
between Mursten and Caporella would be void.
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Caporella.
8
