HLHL, P.A., ETC.
v.
FIDEL CASTRO RUZ, ETC.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-04-17
No. 2023-1728
2024 FL 4315 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

HLHL, P.A. appealed a trial court decision regarding a charging lien claim against funds recovered in a settlement. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the firm failed to properly establish its charging lien because it did not provide timely notice and the services did not produce the settlement recovery.


Holding

The court affirmed, holding that the firm failed to establish a valid charging lien. The firm did not give timely notice before entry of final judgment or an order dismissing the case, causing the trial court to lose jurisdiction to enforce the lien. Additionally, the services must produce a positive judgment or settlement for the lien to attach to the tangible fruits of those services.


Headnotes

[1] An attorney must provide timely notice of a charging lien by filing a notice of lien or otherwise pursuing the lien in the original action.

[2] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enforce a charging lien in the original action if notice is not given before the entry of final judgment or an order dismissing the ca…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action.”

Establishes the requirement for timely notice of a charging lien in Florida law.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

HLHL, P.A. provided legal services in an action and sought to assert a charging lien against settlement proceeds. The firm failed to file a notice of …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1728 Lower Tribunal No. 08-14505 ________________ HLHL, P.A., etc., Appellant, vs.

Fidel Castro Ruz, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. The Hall Law Firm, P.A., and Adam S. Hall, for appellant. Mark Migdal & Hayden, Desiree Fernandez, and Jose M. Ferrer, for appellees Alfredo Villoldo and Gustavo E. Villoldo. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

Affirmed. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986) (“In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action.”); Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1385 (Fla. 1983); Naftzger v. Elam, 41 So. 3d 944, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If notice is not given before entry of the final judgment or an order dismissing the case, the trial court loses jurisdiction to enforce a charging lien in the original action.”); Central Mortg. Co. v. Callahan, 155 So. 3d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[R]eservation of jurisdiction must be specific.”); Correa v. Christensen, 780 So. 2d 220, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“It is not enough to support the imposition of a charging lien that an attorney has provided his services; the services must, in addition, produce a positive judgment or settlement for the client, since the lien will attach only to the tangible fruits of the services.”); Franklin & Marbin, P.A. v. Mascola, 711 So. 2d 46, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (providing that a charging lien proceeding only applies when “identifiable property recovered as a result of the lawyer’s labors.”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw