Case ID: so2d_905/html/1026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WARNER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roger S. TRONTZ, Appellant, v. Steven L. WINIG, Esquire, et al., Appellee.
    No. 4D04-226.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 6, 2005.
    
      Randall W. Henley, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A. and Steven L. Winig of Brody, Cohen & Winig, P.A., West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.
   WARNER, J.

Appellant challenges a summary final judgment foreclosing his attorney’s charging lien on his homestead property. Because appellant failed to challenge, and in fact agreed to, the earlier final order that specifically applied the charging lien to appellant’s homestead, we affirm. The order granting the lien was an appealable final order, and appellant did not appeal it. See, e.g., Shawzin v. Donald J. Sasser, P.A., 658 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Albert v. Goldman-Link, P.A., 661 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Moreover, unlike Sherbill v. Miller Manufacturing Co., 89 So.2d 28 (Fla.1956), on which appellant relies, here appellant specifically agreed to a charging lien on his homestead property, described in the order as an agreed disposition of his attorney’s claim. He also specifically waived his homestead protection as to the property. This specific agreed waiver in settlement of the claim distinguishes this case from Sherbill.

KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.