ASSOULINE BERLOWE v. 801 HIALEAH DRIVE LLC (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A., Appellant, v. 801 HIALEAH DRIVE, LLC, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D24-0901

Decided: February 12, 2025

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

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.

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.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network