DIANE E. HANNAH, APPELLANT,
v.
LEE ROY ELDER, JR., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Hannah appeals a trial court order that vacated her voluntary dismissal with prejudice and scheduled a hearing on opposing counsel's motion to impose a charging lien. The court affirmed, holding that an attorney's charging lien is properly perfected by timely notice while the action remains pending, even if the dismissal occurs before the lien hearing.
The court held that a charging lien requires only timely notice and need not be established prior to dismissal of the case. Because the notice of lien was filed while the cause remained pending, the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to consider Tepps's motion to impose the charging lien.
[1] A charging lien may be perfected by timely notice filed while the cause remains pending.
[2] A voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit with prejudice does not divest the court of jurisdiction to consider a timely filed motion to impose a charging lien.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“there are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice”
Establishes the core legal standard for perfecting a charging lien under 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 intelligenceHannah retained attorney Jerome L. Tepps, P.A. for a personal injury claim. While the case was pending, Tepps served notice of a charging lien on Febr…
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.
[*504] DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, Diane E. Hannah, has perfected this appeal from a non-final order that vacated a prior order dismissing the cause with prejudice, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on appellee’s, Jerome L. Tepps, P.A. (Tepps), motion to impose a charging lien.
It appears that, while this cause remained pending, on February 14, 1989, Tepps served upon Hannah’s counsel a notice of charging lien. Paraphrased, the notice stated that Tepps had represented Hannah at the commencement of her claim for personal injuries, that Hannah had received a settlement of said claim, that counsel for Hannah is not going to include Tepps in any of the settlement proceeds, and that Tepps was entitled to a lien for services rendered. Accompanying said notice of lien was a notice of hearing set for March 1, 1989.
On February 28, 1989, Hannah voluntarily dismissed this suit with prejudice. At the hearing the following day, March 1, 1989, the trial court entered the order appealed from vacating the order of dismissal and scheduling a hearing on Tepps’s motion to impose the charging lien.
Hannah contends that the case was “settled” before the notice of charging lien was transmitted and the suit was closed by way of voluntary dismissal with prejudice before the scheduled hearing to impose the lien. Furthermore, Hannah says, no jurisdiction was reserved in the order of dismissal that would serve to continue the matter. Hannah relies upon Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1986). However, the case is inapposite because in Mones the suit had gone to final judgment without Mones having filed a claim for a charging lien. Thus, there was no jurisdiction to consider the matter post-judgment; whereas, in the present case the notice of lien was filed while the cause remained pending.
In a leading case on this subject, the Supreme Court of Florida stated that “there are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice.” Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla.1983). By her argument, it appears Hannah misunderstands the rule to require the establishment of a lien prior to dismissal of the case, which, in turn, would require proving the four elements set forth in Daniel Mones, P.A., and other cases. However, all that is required, as was done here, is for the attorney to file the notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action. Id.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…of significant importance. Thus, all that is required to entitle the attorney to perfect a charging lien “is for the attorney to file the notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action” prior to its termination. Hannah v. Elder, 545 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). So long as the notice of lien is filed before the case goes to final judgment or is dismissed, “ ‘The lien is chargeable against any person who, at the time notice of intent to claim a lien is given, holds monies or propert…
-
Levine v. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., 901 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…notice. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla.1986). The timely notice requirement must be met for the perfection of the lien and the other three requirements must be established for the imposition of the lien. See Hannah v. Elder, 545 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We address Levine and Nutricology’s first assertion on appeal, that the trial court, on March 26, 2004, lacked jurisdiction to act on the motion to foreclose the charging lien because the case had been voluntarily dismisse…
-
Citizens & Peoples Nat'l Bank OF Pensacola v. Futch, 650 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ttorney to perfect a charging lien is for the attorney to file a notice of charging lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action prior to its termination. Brown v. Vermont, 614 So. 2d 574, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (citing Hannah v. Elder, 545 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). The attorney’s charging lien must be filed before the case goes to final judgment or is dismissed. Id. at 580, citing Hutchins v. Hutchins, 522 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Attorney Kerrigan represented Howard Hea…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1986)