URICH & SHENKMAN, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
An attorney's common law retaining lien is subject to setoff for past legal services rendered in unrelated cases.
An attorney possessed funds of an insolvent insurer. The attorney sought to use a retaining lien to set off fees for unrelated past services. The tria…
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 Attorney'S Retaining Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a nonfinal order entered pursuant to Rule 9.130(3)(C)(ii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, denying the motion to authorize payment (of attorney fees), holding, in part, that a lawyer’s retaining lien is not a secured claim as contemplated under Section 631.011(14), Florida Statutes (1983), and determining the right to immediate possession of the funds at issue. We reverse.
. The issue on appeal is whether an attorney’s common law retaining lien can be foreclosed by setoff against funds of an insolvent insurer which are in the attorney’s possession.
Although the trial court’s decision was arguably correct at the time it was entered, the Supreme Court in Mones v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1986), held that attorneys’ trust accounts are subject to setoff for past legal services rendered in unrelated cases so long as the client’s funds which are entrusted to the attorney are not being held in trust for a specific purpose. Thus, relying on Mones, we reverse and certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida as being of great public importance:
IS PROPERTY HELD PURSUANT TO AN ATTORNEY’S COMMON LAW RETAINING LIEN SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE?
BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terex Trailer Corp. v. McILWAIN, 579 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nal orders determining the right to immediate possession of property, under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). The rule has been applied to real and personal property, and to determine the status of a fund of money. Urich & Shenkman, P.A. v. Horizon Ins. Co., 491 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Smith v. Daniel Mones, P.A., 458 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We construe the order granting partial summary judgment in this case as a temporary mandatory injunction. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction under Florida Rule…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lou Ann Lanier, CPA, 898 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…trial court denied the County's claim for the immediate possession of funds, we have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii); see also State v. Ruth, 595 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Urich & Shenkman, P.A. v. Horizon Ins. Co., 491 So. 2d 1195, 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). . The term "estate” is defined in section 727.103(7) as "all of the assets of the assign- or.” . Although the trial-court accepted the County's original proof of claim in the amount of $112,515.18, the County concedes th…
Authorities Cited
- Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1986)