Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Peters
This text of 931 So. 2d 1059 (Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Peters) 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.
Opinion
Former counsel for the wife in an ongoing dissolution of marriage proceeding seeks review of a nonfinal order granting her motion to release discovery papers to her, in spite of her delinquency in paying fees she owes the firm. The firm filed a notice of retaining lien. We grant the petition.
In granting release of the files, the trial court stated that the “firm does not have a contract or a court order granting a retaining lien.” But the firm did have an implied-in-fact contract, even if not written, and did not need a court order to maintain its lien. Andrew Hall & Assocs. v. Ghanem, 679 So.2d 60, 61-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The order on review is capable of causing irreparable harm to the firm’s retaining lien. Rutherford, Mulhall & Wargo, P.A. v. Antidormi, 695 So.2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the petition is granted and the order is hereby quashed.
Petition Granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
931 So. 2d 1059, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 11166, 2006 WL 1816228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelowitz-shelowitz-terrell-coffey-pa-v-peters-fladistctapp-2006.