A lawsuit filed in Pinellas County Circuit Court alleges that inadequate legal representation led to the loss of valuable property and left a former client with significant unsatisfied debt after a foreclosure sale. The complaint was submitted by Anthony Stroud on February 12, 2026, against defendants Matthew D. Weidner and Weidner Law, P.A.
According to the filing, Stroud retained the services of Weidner and his law firm in October 2023 after learning that his membership interest in Whiskey Creek Development, LLC had been sold at public auction for $7,500. The property owned by Whiskey Creek was valued at approximately $2 million, far exceeding both the judgment amount against Stroud and the final sale price obtained at auction. The plaintiff alleges that he did not receive proper notice regarding the foreclosure proceedings or sale due to improper service by the creditor.
The dispute stems from an underlying litigation dating back to 2006 when The Cadle Company II, Inc., obtained a final judgment against Stroud in Ohio for more than $100,000 plus interest. This judgment was later domesticated in Florida as part of efforts to collect on the debt. In May 2022, the creditor sought a charging order against Stroud’s interests in Whiskey Creek Development, which ultimately led to a foreclosure judgment and public auction sale in July 2023.
Stroud asserts that he had been represented by counsel since 2006 and that his attorneys’ appearance had never been terminated throughout these proceedings. Despite this ongoing representation, court documents were allegedly served only via mail to outdated addresses rather than on his attorneys of record as required by Florida procedural rules.
Upon retaining Weidner Law and Matthew D. Weidner in October 2023, Stroud’s new counsel filed an emergency motion for injunction and a motion to vacate the foreclosure sale on November 10, 2023. These motions argued that Stroud did not receive actual notice of key actions taken by the creditor from 2022 onward because notices were sent only to an old address instead of his attorneys.
The complaint states: “The Motion to Vacate correctly asserted that Plaintiff was not provided proper notice… because they were sent to an address he had not resided at since 2008.” It further claims that meritorious grounds existed for vacating both the final judgment of foreclosure and all subsequent orders entered without proper notice.
An evidentiary hearing on these motions was scheduled for January 19, 2024. According to Stroud’s complaint, despite knowing it was an evidentiary hearing requiring presentation of evidence or witnesses, Weidner Law appeared but failed to present any such evidence or testimony on behalf of their client. Instead, they relied solely on argument before the court.
On February 15, 2024, the trial court denied both motions due to this lack of evidence presented at the hearing. The order stated: “it was incumbent upon [Plaintiff] to come forward and present testimony of witnesses, and to introduce admissible evidence… Instead, he relied solely on the argument of his counsel.”
Stroud alleges that as a result of this failure by his attorneys—described as falling below professional standards—he lost substantial equity in Whiskey Creek’s property while remaining liable for most of the original judgment debt (with accrued interest alone exceeding $383,164). He also claims damages associated with eviction from the property following its transfer through judicial sale.
The complaint outlines multiple counts against both Weidner individually and his law firm for legal malpractice based on alleged failures including: not properly advising Stroud about waivable rights; failing to prepare adequately for hearings; failing to present necessary evidence; failing to conduct discovery; pleading deficient claims; and other actions or omissions detrimental to Stroud’s interests.
Stroud seeks damages exceeding $50,000 exclusive of costs or fees from both defendants under theories including direct negligence as well as vicarious liability under respondeat superior principles.
He is represented by Jesse R. Butler of Butler Legacy & Litigation PLLC. The case is identified as Case Number: 26-000960-CI.
Source: 26000960CI_Anthony_Stroud_v_Matthew_D_Weidner_Complaint_Pinellas_County_Florida.pdf
