The Fourth District Court of Appeal Wednesday reinstated consent judgments against the owners of defunct Pompano Beach-based pool construction company Nationwide Pools Inc., sued in 2013 by then-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and her legal affairs department for allegedly ripping off customers.

The move reversed the trial court, which had found the defendants had been deprived of their due process rights.

The civil lawsuit alleged deceptive trade practices, accusing a construction company, a contractor, four pool companies and their leadership of misleading customers to close sales and adding 3% surcharges to credit card payments.

The defendants had all assets frozen as the state sought equitable relief, award restitution, civil penalties and attorney fees.

Then-Broward Circuit Judge Michael Gates hit the accused companies with a default final judgment in 2014, finding them liable for failing to answer the complaint. Meanwhile, the individual defendants — Terry Edwards, Keith Stuart, Lynn Stuart and Felicia Mallia — proceeded without lawyers. They opposed Gates' summary judgment and denied the allegations against them.

The defendants agreed to settle the suit in November 2015 with consent judgments, complete with restitution orders and injunctions.

But 17 months later they retained defense lawyers Robyn Sztyndor, Crane Johnstone and Claudia Pastorious, who moved to disqualify Gates over ex parte proceedings. Gates agreed to step down, and the case went to Broward Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez.

The defense then asked the court to vacate the consent judgments, arguing Gates had denied them due process. After a three-day hearing featuring live witness testimony, Rodriguez agreed, vacating the judgments and ordering the attorney general's office to return the $23,000 it had collected so far.

In his February 2018 ruling, Rodriguez found the pro se defendants had requested some of their assets be released so they could hire a lawyer. But Gates told them they had to hire a lawyer to set a hearing to unfreeze their assets, something they couldn't do with their bank accounts frozen.

Rodriguez also found that the defendants hadn't been properly noticed of hearings and proceedings, and remarked Gates made a “serious misstatement” when he said they needed a lawyer to help unfreeze their assets. He also noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had since declared the underlying Florida statute governing credit card surcharges unconstitutional.

“Certainly, these defendants' testimony that they were misled as to the significance of a finding of liability as to the corporations is credible and believable based on the record,” Rodriguez wrote. ”Otherwise, why would they argue at every court hearing where they appeared that they were not liable?”

But faced with an appeal from the attorney general, the Fourth DCA has walked that back, ruling that the defendants agreed to the consent judgment and waited 17 months before appealing.

|

'A mess of a case'

Sztyndor said she and her team were shocked by the court's decision in what she called ”a mess of a case.” In Sztyndor's view, the opinion fell back on the consent judgments without addressing how they were reached.

“It gives no deference to Judge Rodriguez, who sat there and watched a 30-hour minitrial,” Sztyndor said. ”They're basically setting a standard for all of us attorneys out there, which says if you railroad a pro se litigant enough that they finally say 'Uncle' and sign their name to something, it'll stick. They're rewarding misconduct by attorneys.”

Sztyndor claims her clients, who she represents pro bono, have a 10th-grade education and felt they'd had no choice but to go along with the consent judgments, having been told they'd otherwise face a $22 million judgment. The asset freeze even left one client homeless, according to Sztyndor, who said the court continued to email him notices he couldn't check.

Sztyndor said she worried the decision had political elements.

“I don't think that has any representative to real justice,” Sztyndor said. “You have a bunch of judges up at the Fourth DCA, some of whom are political appointees, and you're asking them to rule against the state of Florida. The reality is there's a political component to this and they don't want to do it.”

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, Solicitor General Amit Agarwal and Bureau Chief Sarah Shullman represent the state. Spokeswoman Kylie Mason said they're pleased with the court's ruling, but did not comment further.

Fourth DCA Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz wrote the opinion, with Chief Judge Jonathan D. Gerber and Robert M. Gross concurring.

Read the full court opinion:

|

Read more: