Jury finds attorney Joseph P. Klock committed violation of Florida Statutes Section 68.065 in Actions to collect worthless payment instrument and Breach of Contract

Mario Capone of Mario's Drycleaners in South Miami sued Attorney Joseph Klock, Jr. because Klock payed for some of the services with a worthless check, and did not pay for other invoices. Bruce Fischman represented Mr. Capone. The jury came back with a verdict in favor of Mr. Capone and against Joseph Klock on all counts. Mr. Klock appealed the verdict and judgment to the Third Districk Court of Appeals. Mr. Fischman argued against Mr. Klock in the appeal. The District court also ruled against Mr. Klock in a written opinion as follows: 

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. November 1, 2017 233 So.3d 1158 (Mem) 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2358 (Approx. 2 pages)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

Joseph KLOCK, Appellant,


Mario CAPONE, Appellee.

No. 3D16–1944

Opinion filed November 1, 2017Rehearing Denied December 1, 2017

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 15–6853

A Rasco Klock Perez Nieto and Joseph P. Klock, Jr. and Susan E. Klock, for appellant.

The Fischman Law Firm, P.A. and Bruce D. Fischman, for appellee.




Affirmed. See § 68.065(6), Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing: “After commencement of the action but before the hearing, the maker or drawer may tender to the payee, as satisfaction of the claim, an amount of money equal to the sum of the payment instrument, the service charge, court costs, and incurred bank fees”) (emphasis added); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 22 So.3d 594, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (observing: “ ‘The starting point for [the] interpretation of a statute is always its language,’ so that ‘courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there’ ”) (quoting Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So.2d 614, 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)(additional citations omitted)). See also Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So.2d 1186, 1187–88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that oral contract by which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff in exchange for plaintiff's agreement to provide air charter service to a third party was not a promise to answer for the debt of another and thus fell outside the purview of the Statute of Frauds); Larnel Builders, Inc. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co., 117 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

All Citations

233 So.3d 1158 (Mem), 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2358