LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL B. BREHNE, P.A.
v.
PORTER LAW FIRM, LLC, SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE AND SHEILA JACKMAN
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 appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for insurance companies, holding they did not impair an attorney's charging lien by disbursing settlement funds to new counsel who held them in trust. The decision clarifies that a lien is not impaired as long as the funds remain identifiable and accessible, even if held by a third party.
No, the insurance companies did not impair the Law Office's charging lien because the settlement funds were held in trust by the newly retained counsel. The lien remains enforceable against the funds in trust.
[1] An attorney's charging lien attaches to the tangible fruits of the attorney's services.
[2] A perfected attorney's charging lien is enforceable against any person holding funds or property that will become proceeds of a future judgment, provided notice of intent…
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“An attorney’s charging lien attaches to the tangible fruits of the services.”
Establishes the nature and attachment of a charging lien.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Law Office of Michael B. Brehne, P.A. (Law Office) had a charging lien on settlement proceeds for its former client. The insurers, aware of the li…
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 Settlement Proceeds cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Law Office of Michael B. Brehne, P.A. (“Law Office”), appeals a final summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Southern-Owners Insurance Company (collectively, “the Insurers”), finding that the Insurers had not impaired Law Office’s charging lien on the settlement proceeds paid to its former client and her newly retained counsel. The Insurers concede that Law Office properly perfected its charging lien before they disbursed the settlement proceeds to the former client’s newly retained counsel. They contend that because the charging lien attaches only to the disputed funds, which are held in the newly retained counsel’s trust account, Law Office’s lien has not been impaired. We agree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
An attorney’s charging lien attaches to the tangible fruits of the services. Correa v. Christensen, 780 So. 2d 220, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)). Once a charging lien has been perfected, it is enforceable against “any person who, at the time notice of intent to claim a lien is given, holds monies or property which become proceeds of a judgment to be entered in the future.” Hutchins v. Hutchins, 522 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, although the Insurers had notice of Law Office’s charging lien, they paid the settlement proceeds to the newly retained counsel who agreed to hold, and has continued to hold, the disputed funds in trust.1 Because the funds are in trust, Law Office’s lien has not been impaired. However, should that situation change in the future, the Insurers cannot avoid liability for the attorney’s fees subject to Law Office’s lien
simply because it transferred the funds to a third party. See Hall, Lamb & Hall, P.A. v. Sherlon Invs. Corp., 7 So. 3d 639, 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- Hutchins v. Hutchins, 522 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Correa v. Christensen, 780 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Hall, Lamb & Hall, P.A. v. Sherlon Invs. Corp., 7 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)