SUZZANN EVANS CARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD L. CARD, 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.
In this Florida family law appeal, the former wife challenges the trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs and the court's failure to expressly reserve jurisdiction over counsel's charging lien. The appellate court dismisses the fees challenge as premature and affirms, finding that the trial court retains jurisdiction to address the charging lien through its reserved jurisdiction over attorney's fees.
The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the challenge to the attorney's fees award because the judgment was ambiguous regarding entitlement and the amount had not been determined, making that portion nonfinal and nonappealable. The court affirmed that the trial court retains jurisdiction to consider the charging lien through its reserved jurisdiction over attorney's fees and costs.
[1] An order that determines only the right to attorney's fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order.
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a charging lien when it has reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney's fees.
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 order that determines only the right to attorney's fees without setting the amount is a nonap-pealable, nonfinal order”
Establishes that the fee entitlement portion of the judgment is not ripe for appellate review when the amount remains undetermined.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuzzann Evans Card (former wife) appealed from an amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to Donald L. Card (former husband). The former wife's…
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 Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Suzzann Evans Card, the Former Wife, appeals from the amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to Donald L. Card, the Former Husband. The only issues presented for our consideration concern attorney’s fees and costs and whether the *437trial court erred in failing to reserve jurisdiction over the charging lien filed by the Former Wife’s counsel. We affirm the amended final judgment with the following exception.
The Former Wife raises several arguments regarding the propriety of the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction her challenge to the award because, not only is the amended final judgment ambiguous regarding entitlement, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees to be awarded. Because the amount has not been determined, that portion of the amended final judgment is nonfinal and nonappealable. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So.2d 612, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that an order that determines only the right to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a nonap-pealable, nonfinal order); see also Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirming the amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage but dismissing as premature the trial court’s ruling only determining entitlement to fees because the issue was “not ripe for appeal” until the trial court determined the amount of the fees to be awarded).
Counsel for the Former Wife also argues that the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction in the amended final judgment to address his timely filed charging lien. There is no dispute that counsel filed the notice and claim of charging lien before the original final judgment was entered. Thus, counsel perfected his charging lien by providing timely notice. See Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla.1986) (“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.”); see also Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983) (“[T]here are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice.”); Brown v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So.2d 574, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that to be “timely” the notice of a charging lien must be filed “before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment”). Notwithstanding a lack of express reservation of jurisdiction over the charging lien, the trial court is not foreclosed from considering the charging lien in this action because the issue of attorney’s fees and costs has not been finalized and the trial court reserved jurisdiction for that purpose. See Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So.2d 1158, 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorney’s charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorney’s fees).
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
DAVIS, C.J., and LaROSE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Smith v. Jodie Bear Smith, 169 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Ms. Smith. The trial court’s ruling on attorney’s fees and costs only addressed entitlement and did not set an amount. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review this issue. See Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the former wife’s challenge to an award of attorney’s fees and costs where the final judgment determined only entitlement and not amount); see also McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 61…
-
McGee v. Angeline E. McGee, 264 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…nging the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction to determine the amount former husband will pay for former wife’s attorney’s fees is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Ness v. Martinez, 249 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). That portion of the final judgment does not make an award of fees. It only determines entitlement and is therefore nonfinal. AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part. B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Ortiz v. Ortiz, 315 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…parties' relative financial circumstances. A portion of a final judgment that determines a party's entitlement to attorney's fees but reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees to be awarded is nonfinal and nonappealable. Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). Thus, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the husband's challenge to the attorney's fee award because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- McILVEEN v. McILVEEN, 644 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Brown v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Taylor v. State, 998 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)