At first appearance, Julio Avael may be the poster child for why a person needs to retain a lawyer before settling a case.

But opposing counsel believes otherwise.

Lawyers for several former counselors at Avael's company, Motivational Coaches of America Inc., claim Avael entered into a settlement agreement without any legal counsel, knowing he would have a basis to avoid paying the counselors if he later hired a lawyer.

"The reality is he is extremely sophisticated," said Matthew L. Baldwin, a partner at Vargas Gonzalez Hevia Baldwin, who represents the counselors. "It was all done to try and get himself out of the process."

On Wednesday, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in the counselors' favor. It affirmed the Miami-Dade Circuit Court's ruling that says Avael must honor the settlement agreement, and pay $26,000 in liquidated damages collectively to the plaintiffs.

Click here to read the full Third District Court of Appeal opinion

Avael must also pay the opposing parties' legal fees, which Baldwin said now exceed the liquidated damages.

'Actual nonsense'

Baldwin says he has filed a timeline encompassing Avael's communications with the court. In the timeline, the attorney alleges Avael used the same email and cellphone number, and was always sent court documents in the same manner. But when the plaintiffs were seeking to enforce the settlement, the attorney said Avael suddenly stopped responding.

"He never actually alleges or says under oath that he didn't receive any of this communication," Baldwin said. "He just says, 'You didn't formally serve me.' That's why we put in the settlement agreement you don't have to be served, because we anticipated this actual nonsense from a guy that doesn't want to pay his debts."

In June 2018, the employees claimed Avael owed them money under their contracts. When Avael ignored the employees' demand letter, they filed a lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against Avael and his company, MCUSA. It alleged civil theft, accusing both Avael and his company of embezzlement or conversion of funds due to the employees, the Third DCA's opinion states.

The counselors claimed the company could afford to pay.

In a press release issued in February 2018, MCUSA said it was operating in 78 schools in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, in addition to having health professionals serve children at over 300 schools throughout Florida. A June 2018 Palm Beach Post investigative article says the state's Medicaid program had paid MCUSA more than $400,000 in the preceding two years.

Avael has since hired Lyudmila Kogan, a partner at Pollack, Pollack & Kogan in Miami. Kogan did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

In August 2018, MCUSA, Avael and the counselors reached a settlement. The agreement provided the counselors would dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on full payment by the co-defendants.

But the Third DCA noted several problems with that, including a failure to establish whether Avael or his company received a copy of the lawsuit "before collection proceedings commenced on the subsequent final judgment."

About a week after the parties exchanged signatures on the agreement, lawyers for the counselors filed a motion to enforce. The motion did not attach a copy of the settlement agreement, nor was there any indication that defendants designated an email address for service.

The employees later filed a motion for entry of a final judgment, which was heard at a five-minute motion calendar hearing in October 2018. Neither defendant made an appearance. Final judgment was entered against Avael and MCUSA that day.

In early 2019, Avael, aware that the counsels were seeking postjudgment discovery to collect on the final judgment, filed a pro se unverified motion, the Third DCA opinion recounted. That motion was denied. Soon after, Avael retained counsel, but to no avail.

The circuit court denied a motion to vacate the final judgment. On appeal, the Third DCA affirmed that ruling. It said the decision underscores the importance of promptly raising objections to a settlement agreement. Also, the Third DCA emphasized the importance of consulting "an attorney before waiving important legal rights or filing a motion as procedurally and substantively difficult as a motion to vacate a final judgment."