MICAELA DE LA CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP C. BROWN ET AL., 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.
Micaela de la Cruz appeals from a trial court order denying her motion to strike a discharged attorney's charging lien and denying her request for a jury trial on the issue of attorney's fees. The court upheld the charging lien and the trial judge's equitable determination of fees without a jury trial, finding that attorney's liens are equitable in nature and properly adjudicated by the court.
The trial court properly denied the motion to strike the charging lien and correctly denied the request for a jury trial. Attorney's liens for services rendered are equitable in nature, and their adjudication by the court upon the proceeds of a client's recovery is proper. Where a charging lien exists, the trial court has equity jurisdiction to determine the attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court has equitable jurisdiction to adjudicate an attorney's charging lien upon the proceeds of a client's recovery.
[2] A discharged attorney's claim for fees, secured by a charging lien, can be adjudicated in the same action as the client's underlying claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The attorney's lien for services rendered .is equitable in nature, and the adjudication of the lien by the Court upon the proceeds of any recovery by the client was proper.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that attorney's liens are equitable instruments subject to court adjudication rather than jury determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDe la Cruz hired attorney Adolfo Koss to represent her in a personal injury case. While Koss was negotiating with the defendants' insurer, de la Cruz …
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 Attorney'S Charging Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.
Micaela de la Cruz, having been injured in an automobile accident, hired the Appel-lee, Adolfo Koss, to represent her and, after negotiations with the defendants’ insurer, subsequently Micaela de la Cruz decided to discharge the attorney, which she did by a series of letters, and, during the time the letters were being received by the attorney, the defendants’ insurance agent made a firm settlement offer of $10,000.00, and this offer was transmitted to Micaela de la Cruz, who refused the offer and returned the check to the insurer. Having discharged her attorney, she obtained the services of Guillermo F. Mascaro, who filed suit against the tortfeasor and his insurer. Adolfo Koss then filed his claim of lien for attorney’s fees. After the suit was filed, the new counsel for Micaela de la Cruz obtained an identical settlement of $10,-000.00 from the defendants’ insurance company.
The trial court denied the motion to strike the claim of lien and ordered the insurer to deposit $3,333.33 of the settlement into the registry of the Court and the remainder to be paid to Micaela de la Cruz.
A jury trial was requested on the issue of attorney’s fees, and the Court denied the request and, after taking testimony, entered an order of $2,833.00 for Adolfo Koss and $500.00 for Guillermo F. Mascaro. The Appellant raises the question in the appeal that the amount of the fees to be recovered by the discharged attorney must be decided by a separate action at law and trial by jury, and that the notice of lien was defective in that it contained no factual allegation to support a claim of lien.
We find the trial judge to be correct in denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the claim of lien for attorney's fees, and the Court was correct in denying the request for jury trial.
The attorney's lien for services rendered .is equitable in nature, and the adjudication of the lien by the Court upon the proceeds of any recovery by the client was proper. The distribution of attorney’s fees comes under the equity jurisdiction of the trial court. Since the attorney Adolfo Koss filed a charging lien upon the proceeds of any recovery by his client, all parties were within the jurisdiction of the court, and the trial court took testimony as to his services rendered prior to trial and made an equitable determination of the fee the attorney Koss was entitled to receive prior to his discharge.
Since the dispute arises between two attorneys and there was a charging lien, the case of Worley v. Phillips, 264 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App.2d 1972) is controlling. The Court held:
“* * * Rule 1.030 R.C.P. 30 F.S.A., provides that the Court may condition the substitution of an attorney upon payment of or security for the substituted attorney’s fee and expenses, or upon such other terms as may be just. The charging lien is an equitable right to have the costs and fees due the attorney for services in the suit secured to him in the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. It was created to protect the rights of the attorney. Chancey v. Bauer, C.C.A. 5, 1938, 97 F. 2d 293; 3 Fla.Jur., Attorneys at Law, § 71; 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 211. The creation of a charging lien upon the proceeds of any recovery by the client in an equity action is an acceptable method of providing security for the payment of the attorney’s fee. Winn v. City of Cocoa, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 909; Kurzweil v. Simon, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 254. But where there is no charging lien involved, a lawyer’s claim for fees must be prosecuted in a separate action at law, Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla. App.1960, 122 So. 2d 24; Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. McGahey, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 92. See Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 1938, 132 Fla. 63, 180 So. 538.”
We find no merit in any of the other errors assigned by the plaintiff. For reason assigned, the orders appealed from are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dowda & Fields, P.A. v. Cobb, 452 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…1, 93 A.L.R. 661 (1933); Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 So. 242 (1933); Pasin v. Kroo, 412 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Miles v. Katz, 405 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Conroy v. Conroy, 392 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); de la Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Billingham v. Thiele, 107 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); 7A C.J.S., Attorney and Client § 359 (1980); Annot., Attorney’s Lien on Property Recovered For His Client, 93 A.L.R. 667, 696 (1934); 4 Fla.Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law § 158 (…
-
Litman v. Fine, 517 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…aachou, 122 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). However, mere withdrawal or discharge of the attorney before litigation is ended does not deprive him of his right to enforce a claim of lien asserted before the close of the litigation, de La Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Ryder v. MacKenzie, 235 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).…
-
Conroy v. Conroy, 392 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ns have upheld the imposition of a charging lien without mentioning such an agreement and under circumstances which suggest that there probably wasn’t any agreement. In re Barker's Estate; Winn v. City of Cocoa; Carter v. Davis; de la Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Worley v. Phillips, 264 So. 2d 42 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Kurzweil v. Simon, 204 So. 2d 254 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). Accord, Chancey v. Bauer. There seems to be little distinction between a judgment which recovers real estate on the one han…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goodkind v. Wolkowsky, 132 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1938)
- Khudourie Chaachou v. Fredericka Phillips Chaachou, 122 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Chancey v. Bauer, 97 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1938)
- Winn v. City OF Cocoa, 75 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1954)
- Zadock E. Worley v. Phillips, 264 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Kurzweil v. Simon, 204 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. McGAHEY, 144 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)