CHARLES BRODY AND SHARON BRODY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE NATURAL PARENTS OF ERIC BRODY, AND AS CO-GUARDIANS FOR THE GUARDIANSHIP OF ERIC BRODY, PETITIONERS,
v.
BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, RESPONDENT
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of prohibition, quashing the trial court's order that would have allowed reopening of a case six years after final judgment to consider a charging lien filed two years after the judgment. The court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien that was not timely perfected before the court's jurisdiction ended.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien that has not been timely perfected by filing before the court loses jurisdiction through settlement, dismissal, or final judgment. The trial court lost jurisdiction when it entered the final judgment, and the subsequent attempt to reopen the case to consider the late-filed lien was improper.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien if it has not been timely perfected before the court loses jurisdiction through settlement, dismissal, or fi…
[2] A trial court loses jurisdiction of a case upon entry of a final judgment, absent a reservation of jurisdiction within that judgment.
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“A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien where it has not been timely perfected; that is, filed before the trial court lost jurisdiction through settlement, dismissal or final judgment.”
Establishes the core legal principle that charging liens must be filed before jurisdiction is lost.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered in the underlying case. More than two years after entry of the final judgment, the law firm respondent sought to reopen t…
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 Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for writ of prohibition, wherein petitioners challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction to reopen a case six years after it entered the final judgment. We'grant the petition.
Respondent, Searcy, Denney, Sca-rola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., (the “firm”) seeks to reopen the case so that the trial court can consider issues surrounding a charging lien. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss or strike the lien. The charging lien was not filed until more than two years after jurisdiction of the case ended by the trial court’s entry of a final judgment and there was no reservation of jurisdiction in that judgment to entertain fees. We grant the petition because the trial court lacks power to preside over this case. Tobkin v. State, 111 So.2d 1160,1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), citing T.D. v. K.D., 747 So.2d 456, 457 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., Ill So.2d 32, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Keister v. Polen, 471 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
*611A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien where it has not been timely perfected; that is, filed before the trial court lost jurisdiction through settlement, dismissal or final judgment. See Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaurn & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983); Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d.559 (Fla. 1986); Levine v. Gonzalez, 901 So.2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court lost jurisdiction of this case by virtue of the final judgment. This is not a case, such as those relied upon by the firm, where there was fraud or collusion associated with the final judgment that resulted in the trial court’s loss of jurisdiction, thereby depriving an attorney of the opportunity to timely file the lien. See, e.g., Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328,11 So.2d 892 (1943); Naftzger v. Elam, 41 So.3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Brown v. Vermont Mutual Ins. Co., 614 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); United States v. Transocean Air Lines, 356 F.2d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1966).
We recognize the firm’s claims that equitable circumstances exist warranting the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction. However, the firm has already commenced a separate, new action against the clients, the clients’ attorney (formerly a member of the firm), and others in which it alleges counts to impress a lien, along with various other claims for relief. Naftzger, 41 So.3d at 947. The firm therefore has an adequate avenue through which to seek relief.
Petition Granted. Order quashed.
TAYLOR, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greenberg Traurig, P. A. v. Starling, 238 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. JAK Mortg., LLC, 224 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…r the proposition that the trial court’s reopening of a closed case provides the trial court with renewed jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against a party long since dismissed from the lawsuit. See e.g. Brody v. Broward Cty. Sheriffs Office, 137 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that a trial court cannot re-open a case after “[t]he trial court lost jurisdiction ... by virtue of-the final judgment”); Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Wellenreiter, 475 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (holdi…
-
Reidy v. Liudmyla Y. Reidy, 261 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…al judgment. The trial court determined that it was timely. We grant relief for two reasons. First, the attorney failed to file the notice of charging lien before the trial court issued the final judgment. Brody v. Broward Cty. Sheriff’s 2 Office, 137 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a charging lien where it has not been timely perfected; that is, filed before the trial court lost jurisdiction through settlement, dismissal or final judgment.”). Second, the…
Authorities Cited
- Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- Lenore Miller and Wallace Ruff v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1943)
- Brown v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- T.D. v. K.D., 747 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- United States v. Transocean AIR Lines, Inc., 356 F.2d 702 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Levine v. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., 901 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Keister v. Honorable Mark E. Polen, 471 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Naftzger v. Elam, 41 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)