Telsave Leasing Group v. Teltec Saving Communications Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Telsave Leasing Group v. Teltec Saving Communications Co.

506 So. 2d 58, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7891

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2644

StatusPublished

This text of 506 So. 2d 58 (Telsave Leasing Group v. Teltec Saving Communications Co.) 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

Telsave Leasing Group v. Teltec Saving Communications Co., 506 So. 2d 58, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7891 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An attorney is entitled to a charging lien against a res only if payment of his fees is either contingent upon recovery of that res or payment is to be made from that res. Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983). In this case, Weksler’s and Aronovitz’s fees were made contingent, by express contractual terms, solely upon the recovery of unpaid rent money in an action for the breach of a lease. Thus, the charging lien was properly imposed against the trial court's judgment upholding the lease agreement. The charging lien upon the unpaid rent was destroyed, however, when this court reversed the trial court’s judgment on appeal, Teltec Saving Communications Co. v. Telsave Leasing Group, 488 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA) review denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1986), eliminating the res upon which recovery was contingent. Based upon the parties’ express intentions to limit the contingency of payment to recovery of unpaid rent money, we find that the trial court erred in extending the charging lien to Telsave Leasing Group’s recoupment of its investment. Accordingly, the order under review is

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

An attorney is entitled to a charging lien against a res only if payment of his fees is either contingent upon recovery of that res or payment is to be made from that res. Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983). In this case, Weksler’s and Aronovitz’s fees were made contingent, by express contractual terms, solely upon the recovery of unpaid rent money in an action for the breach of a lease. Thus, the charging lien was properly imposed against the trial court's judgment upholding the lease agreement. The charging lien upon the unpaid rent was destroyed, however, when this court reversed the trial court’s judgment on appeal, Teltec Saving Communications Co. v. Telsave Leasing Group, 488 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA) review denied, 500 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1986), eliminating the res upon which recovery was contingent. Based upon the parties’ express intentions to limit the contingency of payment to recovery of unpaid rent money, we find that the trial court erred in extending the charging lien to Telsave Leasing Group’s recoupment of its investment. Accordingly, the order under review is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 58, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1111, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telsave-leasing-group-v-teltec-saving-communications-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack