Baucom v. Baucom, s. 79-2381
| Decision Date | 07 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | 79-2390 and 79-2430,Nos. 79-2381,s. 79-2381 |
| Parties | Ruby D. BAUCOM, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Phillip E. BAUCOM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik and John L. Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis, Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for appellants.
Smathers & Thompson and Hugh J. Turner, Jr. and Cromwell A. Anderson and Keith Hope, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C.J., and BASKIN and PEARSON, DANIEL, JJ.
With respect to the wife's former attorneys Sinclair, Louis, Siegel & Heath, we affirm the orders appealed from upon a holding that: (a) the settlement agreement herein was entered into in good faith by the respective parties herein with no intent to defraud the said attorneys of their fees, thereby making the rule stated in Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So.2d 892 (1943) inapplicable; see e. g., Sentco, Inc. v. McCulloh, 84 So.2d 498 (Fla.1955); and (b) no valid charging lien was perfected in this cause by said attorneys as the motion for same filed below was nothing more than an effort to attack the parties' settlement as a fraud upon the attorneys under Miller v. Scobie, supra; see e. g., Herold v. Hunt, 327 So.2d 240, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
With respect to the wife's former attorneys Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega, the order dismissing the instant action with prejudice and denying said attorneys' motion to enforce their charging lien is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant said motion upon a holding that said attorneys, in our view properly perfected a charging lien upon the settlement proceeds in this cause through the notice of lien for attorneys' fees and costs and the motion to enforce attorneys' fee and lien filed herein. See e. g., Cruz v. Brown, 338 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom
...is before the Court on petition for discretionary review from a final order of the Third District Court of Appeal. Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So.2d 347 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1981). That opinion affirmed the trial court's denial of enforcement of a charging lien and denial of permission to pursue the ......
-
IN RE WINTERS & CO., INC.
...§ 60(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 96(a)(2), such liens are conclusively presumed to be preferential. 4. In Baucom v. Baucom, Fla.App. 3, 1981, 397 So.2d 347, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal "With respect to the wife\'s former attorneys Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega, ......
-
Urbieta v. Urbieta
...3d DCA 1979). The court additionally erred in failing to adjudicate the charging lien of the Stabinski law firm. See Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So.2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), modified sub nom Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983) (wife's a......
-
Riveiro v. J. Cheney Mason, P.A.
...Id. at 1384. The trial court denied the law firm's claim to enforce its charging lien and the Third District affirmed. Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So.2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Ultimately, the supreme court disagreed and quashed the Third District's opinion insofar as it denied enforcement of the......