Herman A. Thomas, Inc. v. Sharpe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herman A. Thomas, Inc. v. Sharpe

309 So. 2d 592, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14430

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1975

DocketNo. 74-381

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 309 So. 2d 592 (Herman A. Thomas, Inc. v. Sharpe) 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

Herman A. Thomas, Inc. v. Sharpe, 309 So. 2d 592, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14430 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Herman A. Thomas, Inc., appeals a post-judgment order directing disbursement of certain funds held by a trustee. The order was entered in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure proceeding and ordered one Norman K. Schwarz, as trustee, to pay forthwith to Joseph J. Gersten the sum of $19,620.90 as a fee due him on an attorney’s charging lien.

Appellant’s points on appeal urge errors in the proceedings setting the amount of the fee. Unfortunately, we are unable to reach the errors complained of because the fee was set by another order entered by the same court on September 12, 1973. No timely appeal was taken from that order. Under these circumstances, we are foreclosed from a consideration of appellant’s points claiming that the fee allowed is excessive. Cf. Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So.2d 175 (1943).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Herman A. Thomas, Inc., appeals a post-judgment order directing disbursement of certain funds held by a trustee. The order was entered in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure proceeding and ordered one Norman K. Schwarz, as trustee, to pay forthwith to Joseph J. Gersten the sum of $19,620.90 as a fee due him on an attorney’s charging lien.

Appellant’s points on appeal urge errors in the proceedings setting the amount of the fee. Unfortunately, we are unable to reach the errors complained of because the fee was set by another order entered by the same court on September 12, 1973. No timely appeal was taken from that order. Under these circumstances, we are foreclosed from a consideration of appellant’s points claiming that the fee allowed is excessive. Cf. Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So.2d 175 (1943).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 So. 2d 592, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-a-thomas-inc-v-sharpe-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack