JOEL M. WEISSMAN, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
HATEM AHMED ABOU-SAYED AND ARGHAVAN GABRIELA MOSTAFAVI, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2013-02-06
No. 4D11-1524
CONNER, J., and McMANUS, F. SHIELDS, Associate Judge, concur.
107 So. 3d 1163 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that an attorney's charging lien requires tangible fruits of the attorney's services for the client, and the trial court correctly found no such fruits when the underlying litigation produced only valueless assets.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought to adjudicate a charging lien for attorney's fees. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the attorney's labor produced only…

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.


Opinion of the Court
POLEN, J.

On Motions for Rehearing.

POLEN, J.

We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing and deny appellees’ motion for rehearing en banc. Further, we grant in part appellees’ motion for rehearing, withdraw our slip opinion dated December 5, 2012, and substitute the following in its place.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s Motion to Adjudicate its Charging Lien. An “essential prerequisite to imposition of a charging lien is that the underlying litigation produces a positive judgment or settlement — in other words, some ‘tangible fruits of the attorney’s service’ for the benefit of the client.” Walia v. Hodgson Russ LLP, 28 So.3d 987, 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Whether an attorney’s services produced “tangible fruits” is an issue of proof. Richman, Greer, Weil, Brumbaugh, Mirabito, & Christensen, P.A. v. Chernak, 991 So.2d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Excluding those accounts that are protected from creditors’ liens by operation of statute, see §§ 222.21 & 222.14, Fla. Stat. (2010), the record supports the trial court’s finding that Mr. Weissman’s labor produced only valueless assets, thus leaving no “tangible fruits” to which a charging lien may attach.1 Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

CONNER, J., and McMANUS, F. SHIELDS, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …aining a favorable settlement, the trial court has not made sufficient findings as to whether the firm’s services created tangible fruits for the client’s benefit to which the charging lien may attach. Id.; see Joel M. Weissman, P.A. v. Abou-Sayed, 107 So. 3d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Whether an attorney’s services produced ‘tangible fruits’ is an issue of proof.”). Attorney’s Fee Recovery As anticipated by its fee contract, the firm agreed its compensation would be satisfied only through attorney’s…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw