Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. v. 801 Hialeah Drive, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 12, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0901
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-0901 Lower Tribunal No. 20-9987-CA-01

Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., Appellant,

vs.

801 Hialeah Drive, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

Assouline & Berlowe, P.A, Peter E. Berlowe, and Eric N. Assouline; and Erik W. Scharf, for appellant.

Heise Suarez Melville, P.A., Mark J. Heise, and Thomas S. Ward, for appellee SHEDDF2-FL1, LLC.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pasin v. Kroo, 412 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)

(“An attorney's lien, or charging lien on funds recovered for a client through

the attorney’s services may issue only if there is a client-attorney

relationship and the attorney has, in fact, recovered proceeds for his client.

The lien may not issue if no proceeds have been recovered. [Appellant]

was the losing party so there was no recovery of funds.” (internal citations

omitted)); Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England,

P.A., 517 So. 2d 88, 91-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“It is not enough, however,

to support the imposition of a charging lien that an attorney has provided

his services; the services must, in addition, produce a positive judgment or

settlement for the client, since the lien will attach only to the tangible fruits

of the services.”).