RUBY D. BAUCOM, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILLIP E. BAUCOM, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed dismissal of claims against the wife's first law firm (Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath) because the settlement was made in good faith with no intent to defraud them, but reversed and remanded as to the second firm (Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega) because they properly perfected a charging lien on settlement proceeds.
A settlement agreement entered into in good faith by parties with no intent to defraud attorneys does not support a charging lien claim, but attorneys who properly perfect a charging lien through notice and motion may enforce it against settlement proceeds.
[1] A charging lien for attorneys' fees cannot be enforced when the underlying settlement agreement was entered into in good faith by the parties with no intent to defraud th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the settlement agreement herein was entered into in good faith by the respective parties herein with no intent to defraud the said attorneys of their fees, thereby making the rule stated in Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So. 2d 892 (1943) inapplicable”
Court's reasoning for affirming dismissal of first firm's charging lien claim
Two law firms represented the wife in a divorce settlement. The wife and husband settled their dispute, and both law firms sought to enforce charging …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Faith Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
With respect to the wife’s former attorneys Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath, we affirm the orders appealed from upon a holding that: (a) the settlement agreement herein was entered into in good faith by the respective parties herein with no intent to defraud the said attorneys of their fees, thereby making the rule stated in Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So. 2d 892 (1943) inapplicable; see e. g., Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh, 84 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1955); and (b) no valid charging lien was perfected in this cause by said attorneys as the motion for same filed below was nothing more than an effort to attack the parties’ settlement as a fraud upon the attorneys under Miller v. Scobie, supra; see e. g., Herold v. Hunt, 327 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
With respect to the wife’s former attorneys Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega, the order dismissing the instant action with prejudice and denying said attorneys’ motion to enforce their charging lien is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant said motion upon a holding that said attorneys, in our view properly perfected a charging lien upon the settlement proceeds in this cause through the notice of lien for attorneys’ fees and costs and the motion to enforce attorneys’ fee and lien filed herein. See e. g., Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)…EHRLICH, Judge. This cause is before the Court on petition for discretionary review from a final order of the Third District Court of Appeal. Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So. 2d 347 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1981). That opinion affirmed the trial court's denial of enforcement of a charging lien and denial of permission to pursue the litigation to secure attorneys’ fees. Because this decision directly and expressly conflicts with decisio…
-
Urbieta v. Urbieta, 446 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…395 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Adams v. Fisher, supra; Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The court additionally erred in failing to adjudicate the charging lien of the Stabinski law firm. See Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), modified sub nom Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla.1983) (wife’s attorneys not entitled to pursue husband for their fees, despite perfected' charging lien, where wife agree…
-
Kirsten L. Riveiro v. J. Cheney Mason, P.A., 82 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ging lien to secure payment of its fees and to continue litigation against Mr. Baucom for payment of those fees. Id. at 1384. The trial court denied the law firm’s claim to enforce its charging lien and the Third District affirmed. Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Ultimately, the supreme court disagreed and quashed the Third District’s opinion insofar as it denied enforcement of the charging lien against Mrs. Baucom. 428 So. 2d at 1386. The supreme court reiterated that a “charging lien i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lenore Miller and Wallace Ruff v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1943)
- Lloyd Herold, P.A. v. Hunt, 327 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Micaela de la Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Sentco, Inc. v. McCULLOH, 84 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1955)