DAVID STEPHEN REIDY v. LIUDMYLA Y. REIDY ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    DAVID STEPHEN REIDY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    LIUDMYLA Y. REIDY,
    Respondent.
    No. 4D18-2525
    [November 28, 2018]
    Petition for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
    Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Judge; L.T.
    Case No. FMCE 14-006256.
    Carla P. Lowry of Lowry at Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
    Richard F. Hussey of Richard F. Hussey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for
    respondent.
    PER CURIAM.
    Petitioner seeks prohibition to quash an order of the trial court which
    determined that an attorney timely and properly perfected his charging
    lien in a dissolution of marriage action. We grant the petition and quash
    the order upon concluding that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to
    entertain the lien.
    The attorney represented the former wife in a dissolution action. He
    was replaced after the trial court entered a final dissolution judgment and
    while the direct appeal of that judgment was pending. He then filed a
    notice of intention to impose and enforce a charging lien. The trial court
    issued a post-dissolution support and fee order, and that led to a second
    appeal. Once that appeal was resolved, counsel moved to adjudicate and
    impose his charging lien for work performed prior to the entry of the
    original final 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
    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 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
    properly perfected.
    GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2525

Filed Date: 11/28/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/28/2018