Baucom v. Baucom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baucom v. Baucom

397 So. 2d 347, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20265

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1981

DocketNos. 79-2381, 79-2390 and 79-2430

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 397 So. 2d 347 (Baucom v. Baucom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baucom v. Baucom, 397 So. 2d 347, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20265 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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) [348]*348no 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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) [348]*348no 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 347, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baucom-v-baucom-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack