From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolfe v. Wolfe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 28, 1989
540 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-0610.

March 29, 1989. Rehearing and Clarification Denied April 28, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Eugene S. Garrett, J.

A. Matthew Miller of Miller, Schwartz Miller, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Ronald P. Gossett of Gossett, McDonald, Gossett, Crawford, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees.


After a final hearing and the subsequent entry of final judgment, both without notice to the appellant's former attorney who had filed a charging lien, the trial court entered an amended judgment retaining jurisdiction to decide the lien claim. We affirm.

We reject appellant's contention that an attorney's charging lien filed shortly after the attorney's withdrawal, but during the pendency of the underlying dissolution proceedings, was untimely and inadequate to preserve the claim and to provide timely notice to the appellant of the claim. Zimmerman v. Livnat, 507 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wolfe v. Wolfe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 28, 1989
540 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Wolfe v. Wolfe

Case Details

Full title:FRANCINE GALE WOLFE, APPELLANT, v. CHARLES WARREN WOLFE, AND GOSSETT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 28, 1989

Citations

540 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Rudd v. Rudd

Charging liens filed during the pendency of a proceeding may be filed before or after an attorney's…

Offices Togolais Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates

Accordingly, this court reserves jurisdiction to adjudicate the charging lien. See Newton v. Kiefer, 547…