Apparently Cherry’s attorney is trying to back the hell out representation and Cherry is having none of that.
According to Cherry’s filed objection he claims attorney Peter Snyder is more involved in this than other may think.
The document states:
“Attorney Peter J. Snyder and Edward Cherry entered into a business transaction whereby Attorney Peter J. Snyder agreed to represent Edward Cherry and Nicole Pacheco in consideration of Attorney Peter J. Snyder being authorized to solicit all of Fidelity Land Trust Company, LLC clients and convert them to foreclosure defense clients.
Attorney Peter J. Snyder and Edward Cherry also agreed that in consideration of Peter J. Snyder representing Nicole Pacheco and Edward Cherry in this matter, Edward Cherry would pay for the overhead costs (rent, telephone, internet and a paralegal) of Attorney Peter J. Snyder’s law firm.
Peter J. Snyder was allowed to solicit Fidelity Land Trust Company, LLC clients, did solicit said clients, and is currently collecting an excess of $30,000 in legal fees from said clients each month.
On or around October 28, 2013 Attorney Peter J. Snyder demanded $5000 per month from Edward Cherry in lieu of Edward Cherry paying Attorney Peter J. Snyder’s overhead for his law firm.
Edward Cherry declined citing the business transaction discussed above and in response, Attorney Peter J. Snyder and Attorney Michael Liss moved out of the offices being paid for by Edward Cherry and started their own firm, Snyder & Liss with the $30,000 monthly legal fees generated from the former quiet title clients.
On November 22, 2013, Attorney Peter J. Snyder filed a motion to withdraw citing that Edward Cherry failed to substantially fulfill his obligations. This allegation is false and a blatant misrepresentation to this Court.
Accordingly, Attorney Snyder should not be let out of this action and should be ordered to diligently represent his clients’ interests, especially since Attorney Peter J. Snyder participated directly in the legal services that are the subject matter of the plaintiff’s action.” – Source
But that’s not all. Cherry appears to spill even more details of the Florida Land Trust issue with his complaint he filed against Snyder with the Florida Bar.
Quick, someone find a bus to toss Snyder under.
“Beginning in as early as August 2011, I an attorney Peter J. Snyder entered into a business relationship wherein Peter J. Snyder, myself and Paul Gellenbeck discussed the pro-active filing of lawsuits against banks in order to cancel or otherwise annul a recorded mortgage based upon the fact that F.S. 701.02 prohibits the enforcement of a mortgage unless the assignment of mortgage was duly recorded.
Attorney Snyder indicated that such a claim was a viable cause of action and that the statute was clear on it s face and no case law existed to the contrary. In response, Attorney Snyder instructed that a title search should be performed and based upon the search; an opinion letter should be drafted. Attorney Snyder indicated that the only issue was separation of title from the parties to the mortgage.
In response, we researched the Florida Land Trust Act that appeared to be the resolution. Under this Act, legal and equitable title is vested in the Trustee, and not the beneficiaries or the mortgagee. Attorney Snyder said that if I could find another attorney to file the underlying action, Attorney Snyder would represent the client in the event that a foreclosure occurred.
During the period of time 2011 until August, 2012, members of the public were contacted by lawyer referral services and informed that Final Judgments had been obtained quieting title to realty and otherwise canceling the mortgage.
On September 25, 2012, The Attorney General Filed an action against myself and others that relied upon Attorney Snyder’s legal advice alleging that the legal theory as presented was unfair and deceptive.
Attorney Snyder agreed to represent me under the following terms:
1. Attorney Snyder would be able to solicit each and every quiet title client in order to represent them for a fee for $400 – $500 per month keeping the entire legal fees; and
2. I would pay the overhead of Attorney Snyder’s law firm to include rent, telephone, internet and a paralegal Nicole Pacheco, a co-defendant in the action above.
I agreed and Attorney Snyder began soliciting quiet title clients and setting them up on a monthly recurring legal fee of $400 – $500 per month with monthly deposits now as much as $30,000.
I also agreed to pay Attorney Snyder’s overhead in an amount equal to $4000 per month.
On November 4, 2013, Attorney Snyder moved out of the office that I was covering the overhead and started his own law firm with Attorney Michael Liss, using the monies from the quiet title cases to fund his move.
After moving out, Attorney Snyder demanded the I pay him $2500 every two weeks (an amount that Attorney Michael Liss was receiving) in consideration of him representing a co-defendant that no longer had an attorney representing him. I declined.
In response, Attorney Snyder sent me an email demanding that I execute a retainer agreement for the Attorney General Action (because none was executed given the business transaction he entered into with me) . The retainer require that I pay him $250 per hour and made no reference to the business transaction previously entered into.
I declined and thought it irreprehensible that since I was not paying his overhead at his new law offices that he would change the deal. I also indicated that two years ago, we entered into a written retainer agreement for another matter wherein he agreed to an hourly rate of $189.00 per month.
In response, he now demanded $5000 up front and $30,000 per month. I told him I would meet to discuss, but I thought that he was taking advantage of a business relationship and that at the end of the day, “Advice of Counsel” was never raised as an affirmative defense in the Attorney General Lawsuit.
It became obvious why he never raised the Affirmative Defense of advice of counsel, because he was the attorney that provided me and Paul Gellenbeck legal advice.
I believe that Attorney Snyder has taken advantage of a business relationship with me and has provided inadequate counsel because he is the attorney that advised me and other co-defendants that F.S. 701.02 was a viable means of cancelling or otherwise annulling a recorded mortgage.
On November 22, 2013 Attorney Snyder filed a motion to withdraw and set for hearing Monday, December 2, 2013 on UMC.
I believe that he should not be allowed to withdraw.
Witnesses: Paul Gellenbeck, Nicole Pacheco, Lawrence Diodato, Martin Werner, John Webberly, Howard Feinmel, and Steve Lankau are all witnesses.” – Source