KEITH LUTZ AND SANDRA J. LUTZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS S. RUTHERFORD AND JDE FLORIDA, LLC, 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.
Keith and Sandra Lutz appealed an order enforcing attorney Thomas Rutherford's charging lien against them for legal fees incurred in an underlying lawsuit where Rutherford represented the Lutzes. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding it untimely and rejecting the Lutzes' arguments that the notice of charging lien was untimely and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the appeal because it was untimely and the Lutzes failed to appeal the November 29, 2011 order within the applicable time period. The trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the charging lien because the final judgment in the underlying lawsuit expressly reserved jurisdiction to award applicable attorneys' fees.
[1] A party's failure to appeal a final order determining entitlement to attorney's fees renders a subsequent appeal of that order untimely.
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to rule on a charging lien when the final judgment in the underlying lawsuit expressly reserves jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[W]hen a court acts without jurisdiction, its action is void and subject to collateral attack.”
Establishes the standard for challenging a court order as void for lack of jurisdiction, which the Lutzes attempted to do regarding the charging lien order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRutherford represented the Lutzes (defendants) in an underlying lawsuit. On November 29, 2011, the trial court entered an order determining that Ruthe…
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
Keith Lutz and Sandra J. Lutz appeal a March 4, 2013, order granting attor*502ney Thomas S. Rutherford’s motion to enforce the charging lien against the Lutzes, the defendants Rutherford represented in the underlying lawsuit. On, appeal, the Lutzes argue that the trial court erred in entering the order because Rutherford’s notice of charging lien was untimely and because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the charging lien. However, these arguments are essentially challenges to the order entered on November 29, 2011, in which the trial court determined that Rutherford was entitled to recover $46,873.75 from the Lutzes. The Lutzes did not appeal that final order between the Lutzes and Rutherford, and this appeal is untimely as to that order.
In addition, the November 29, 2011, order on Rutherford’s charging lien cannot now be challenged on the basis that it is void for lack of jurisdiction. See generally Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So.2d 176, 179 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[W]hen a court acts without jurisdiction, its action is void and subject to collateral attack.” (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Canal Auth., 423 So.2d 421, 423 n. 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982))). In the final judgment in the underlying lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the Lutzes, the trial court reserved jurisdiction to award “attorneys’ fees that may be applicable”; therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on Rutherford’s charging lien. Cf. Weiland v. Wetland, 814 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose husband’s attorney’s charging lien where final judgment contained express reservation for trial court to award fees to wife only).
Dismissed.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reidy v. Liudmyla Y. Reidy, 261 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…settlement, dismissal or final judgment.”). Second, the judgment denied both parties’ fee requests and therefore did not reserve jurisdiction to adjudicate fees. Compare Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) with Lutz v. Rutherford, 139 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), and Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and quash the trial court’s order which determined counsel’s charging lien was timely and p…
-
Cirillo v. Cirillo (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Royal Frozen Fish Co., Inc. v. Amer Seafoods, Inc., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Weiland v. Dorelle Weiland, Robert Koop Johnson & Robert Koop Johnson, P.A., 814 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)