MICHAEL WEILAND, APPELLANT,
v.
DORELLE WEILAND, ROBERT KOOP JOHNSON AND ROBERT KOOP JOHNSON, P.A., 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.
Michael Weiland appeals a trial court order approving a charging lien filed by his former attorney, Robert Johnson, against property awarded to Weiland in a divorce proceeding. The appellate court reversed, holding that the attorney failed to provide timely notice of the charging lien and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees because the final judgment did not expressly reserve jurisdiction for that purpose.
The court reversed the charging lien order on two independent grounds: (1) the attorney did not provide timely notice of the charging lien because notice must be given prior to or in the original action, not after entry of final judgment, and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees because the final judgment did not expressly reserve jurisdiction for the husband's attorney, only for the wife's attorney.
[1] An attorney's charging lien must be noticed or pursued prior to the entry of final judgment to be considered timely.
[2] A charging lien sought after final judgment has been entered, without prior notice or pursuit in the original action, is untimely.
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“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 legal standard for timely notice of 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 intelligenceMichael Weiland retained attorney Robert Johnson to represent him in a dissolution of marriage proceeding filed on February 8, 2000. A final judgment …
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Michael Weiland, the husband, appeals the trial court’s order approving the general master’s recommendation to allow his attorney, Robert Johnson, to file a charg ing lien against certain property awarded to Mr. Weiland in his dissolution proceeding. We reverse because Mr. Johnson did not give timely notice of the charging lien.
Mr. Weiland retained Mr. Johnson to represent him pursuant to an Attorney Fee Agreement Letter.
On February 8, 2000, Mr. Johnson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on behalf of Mr. Wei-land. A final judgment, which incorporated a marital settlement agreement, was entered on January 22, 2001. In the final judgment, the trial'court reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees only to the attorney representing Dorelle Weiland, the wife.
On April 3, 2001, Mr. Johnson filed a motion seeking to withdraw from representation of Mr. Weiland and to establish a charging hen for attorney’s fees incurred during the dissolution proceedings. The matter was referred to a general master. Following a hearing, the general master submitted a recommended order to the trial court awarding attorney’s fees to Mr. Johnson and imposing a charging lien on a parcel of real property awarded to Mr. Weiland in the final judgment of dissolution.
The trial court subsequently approved the general master’s order. Mr. Weiland argues that the trial court erred in approving the order imposing a charging lien because Mr. Johnson did not provide timely notice of the charging lien. Timely notice is one of the four requirements for a valid charging lien set forth by the supreme court in Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983). “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.” Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla.1986) (citing Sinclair, Louis, 428 So. 2d at 1385).
Notice is timely where the charging hen is filed prior to entry of the final judgment. See Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli v. Bradt, 704 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Conversely, an attorney’s charging hen is untimely and may not be established in proceedings after final judgment has been entered. See Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding attorney may not wait more than thirty days from the entry of final judgment, give notice of nonrepresentation, and then seek to enforce a lien not noticed before the entry of the final judgment).
Here, Mr. Johnson did not give notice of filing a charging hen or otherwise pursue the lien until after the final judgment was entered.
Therefore, the trial court erred in approving the general master’s recommended order awarding attorney’s fees and imposing a charging hen on the property awarded to Mr. Weiland.
Moreover, neither the marital settlement agreement nor the final judgment which incorporated the marital settlement agreement contained an express reservation of jurisdiction for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees to Mr. Weiland’s counsel. The final judgment contained an express reservation of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees only to the wife’s attorney. Without an express reservation of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees to the husband’s attorney, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant Mr. Johnson’s motion to impose a charging hen. See Keister v. Polen, 471 So. 2d 656, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Feltman v. Feltman, 721 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the charging lien and conclude that we need not address the remaining issues raised on appeal.
Reversed.
GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Culbreath Isles Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 103 So. 3d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…under its reservation of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees. And when a court has reserved jurisdiction for the sole purpose of awarding attorney’s fees, it exceeds that jurisdiction by granting relief on any other basis. See Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Keister v. Polen ex rel. Bro-ward Cnty., 471 So. 2d 656, 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The Association argues that the circuit court had jurisdiction to proceed under its inherent continuing jurisdiction to enforce the final ju…
-
Naftzger v. Elam, 41 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla.1986). Regarding the fourth requirement, notice of the charging lien must be filed or the lien pursued in the action before entry of a final judgment or dismissal of the case. Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Levine v. Gonzalez, 901 So. 2d 969, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Hannah v. Elder, 545 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). If notice is not given before entry of the final judgment or an order dismissing the case, the trial cou…
-
Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ed to judgment or dismissed pursuant to settlement in order to be timely. See Levine v. Gonzalez, 901 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Heller v. Held, 817 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), review denied, 839 So. 2d 698 (Fla.2003);2 Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (an attorney’s charging lien is untimely and may not be established in proceedings after final judgment has been entered). See also Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding attorney may not wai…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Keister v. Honorable Mark E. Polen, 471 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Gaebe v. Bradt, 704 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Davis v. Davis, 721 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)