Case Name: Lucia Catalina VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. Gustavo Armando VAZQUEZ and Marks, Aronovitz & Leinoff, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-09-08
Citations: 512 So. 2d 1045
Docket Number: No. 86-1958
Parties: Lucia Catalina VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. Gustavo Armando VAZQUEZ and Marks, Aronovitz & Leinoff, Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 512
Pages: 1045–1046

Head Matter:
Lucia Catalina VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. Gustavo Armando VAZQUEZ and Marks, Aronovitz & Leinoff, Appellees.
No. 86-1958.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 8, 1987.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1987.
Allen Clements, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Marks, Aronovitz & Leinoff, Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The order appealed granted, inter alia, the former wife's attorneys' motion for a charging lien against the former wife in the amount of $7,837.50. We reverse that portion of the order upon the following brief analysis. A charging lien is an equitable right to have costs and fees due an attorney for services in the suit secured to him in the judgment or recovery in that particular suit. Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1384 (Fla.1983). Attorneys wishing to impose such a lien must show: (1) an express or implied contract between attorney and client; (2) an express or implied understanding for payment of attorney's fees, either dependent upon or out of the recovery; (3) either an avoidance of payment or a dispute as to the amount of fees; and (4) timely notice. See Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla.1986) (citing Sinclair, Louis, 428 So.2d at 1385). The final judgment of dissolution of marriage in the instant case included an award of attorney's fees in favor of the former wife. The motion upon which the order appealed was granted sought "a charging lien and/or . attorney's fees to be paid . either by Petitioner [former wife] or Respondent [former husband]." We have carefully considered the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel and conclude that the patently ambiguous and overly broad language of that motion renders it insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute adequate notice.
Reversed.
BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ., concur.