sunEthics

Trial court exceeded its authority by granting charging lien and ordering client's assets frozen to pay attorneys' fees  [Added 8/4/08]

    In 2001, the trial court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding entered an order freezing certain of Former Wife's martial assets (i.e., stock options).  In 2003 the court entered an order granting Former Wife's lawyers a charging lien.  In 2004 the court determined the amount of the charging lien and giving "her former lawyers the right to payment from her marital assets."  Apparently, however, Former Wife disposed of the stock options despite the court's orders.  The court found her in civil contempt of court "for selling a marital asset, after a final judgment of dissolution, in violation of earlier orders freezing the asset and granting an attorney’s charging lien against appellant’s marital assets."  Former Wife appealed.

    The Fourth DCA reversed.  "When the court first ordered the wife not to dispose of her GE stock options, it was not for the purpose of protecting her counsels’ attorneys’ fees.  Indeed the court did not have the authority to freeze her assets in order to pay her own attorneys.  Rinkor v. Brborich, 957 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Levinson v. Levinson, 895 So.2d 432 (Fla.4th DCA 2004); Widom v. Widom, 679 So.2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)."  Pineiro v. Pineiro, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D07-4994, 7/30/2008).

sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University's Jones School of Law.  Please read our disclaimers.  Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX.  © 2008