POMELLI v. POMELLI (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Paulo Cesar Mantegazza POMELLI, et al., Appellants, v. Paola Mantegazza POMELLI, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D20-1113

Decided: September 22, 2021

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellants. Kobre & Kim LLP, and Gabriela Ruiz, for appellee, Kobre & Kim LLP; Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, and Kimberly J. Freedman, Amy Steele Donner, and Erin K. Kolmansberger 1, for appellee, Paola Mantegazza Pomelli.

Affirmed. See Afrazeh v. Miami Elevator Co. of Am., 769 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (stating a trial court's award of attorney's fees made pursuant to a charging lien will not be disturbed “absent a clear abuse of discretion”); Lopez v. Hernandez, 291 So. 3d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“We review a trial court's decision to award a charging lien to an attorney for abuse of discretion.”); Bateman v. Serv. Ins. Co., 836 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reasoning that where an evidentiary hearing is held and the “record contains some competent substantial evidence supporting the fee[,] ․ [including] testimony from the attorney performing the services,” a trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees).

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Out of date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