CIKLIN LUBITZ
v.
TIMOTHY SCHENDEN
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.
A law firm appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion to impose a charging lien against a former client in a marital dissolution action. The client cross-appealed the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the charging lien but reversed the denial of reciprocal attorney's fees to the client.
The court affirmed the denial of the law firm's charging lien because the firm failed to produce a positive judgment or settlement for the client, which is a required element of a valid charging lien. The court reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the client, holding that under the reciprocity provision of section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes, the client was entitled to recover attorney's fees for prevailing in defending against the charging lien.
[1] A charging lien against a client's recovery requires, among other elements, that the attorney's services result in a positive judgment or settlement for the client.
[2] Under Florida Statutes section 57.105(7), a party who prevails in defending against a claim for attorney's fees in litigation is entitled to recover its own attorney's fe…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“But the law firm must not only provide services; it must provide services resulting in 'a positive judgment or settlement for the client.'”
The court explaining the fourth requirement of a charging lien beyond the four-part test.
A law firm represented a client in a marital dissolution action for five months on limited jurisdictional issues. During the representation, the law f…
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 Fla. Stat. § 57.105(7) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017DR008937XXXXSBFX.
John D. Boykin of Ciklin Lubitz, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Joel M. Weissman and Sarah A. Vitulli of Joel M. Weissman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Michele T. Schenden a/k/a Michele Tamaccio.
KUNTZ, J. A law firm appeals the circuit court’s final order denying its motion to adjudicate a charging lien against a former client in the client’s marital dissolution action. The client cross-appeals the circuit court’s denial of her entitlement to attorney’s fees in the same order. The circuit court correctly denied the law firm’s motion to impose a charging lien. To impose a charging lien, four requirements must be satisfied: “(1) an express or implied contract between attorney and client; (2) an express or implied understanding for payment of attorney’s fees out of the recovery; (3) either an avoidance of payment or a dispute as to the amount of fees; and (4) timely notice.” Menz & Battista, PL v. Ramos, 214 So. 3d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Rebecca J. Covey, P.A. v. Am. Car Import Car Sales, 944 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)).
But the law firm must not only provide services; it must provide services resulting in “a positive judgment or settlement for the client.” Id. (quoting Rudd v. Rudd, 960 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Here, the law firm represented the client for only five months on limited jurisdictional issues. During the course of representation, the law firm did not obtain any settlements or financial relief for the client. The circuit court correctly concluded the law firm’s services did not produce a positive result for the client.
On the cross-appeal, we reverse the court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the client. The parties’ representation agreement allowed the law firm to recover attorney’s fees incurred in litigating to collect unpaid sums under the agreement. Under the reciprocity provision in section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2019), the client had a right to recover her attorney’s fees for prevailing in defending against the charging lien. See, e.g., Rochlin v. Cunningham, 739 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the law firm’s motion to impose a charging lien. But we reverse the court’s denial of reciprocal attorney’s fees to the client for prevailing in that fee dispute.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part. GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rudd v. Rudd, 960 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Rochlin v. Gillian Cunningham and Thomas Ruffin, III, 739 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Rebecca J. Covey, P.A. v. Am. Imp. CAR Sales, 944 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)