First off, let me announce the winner of the Scott Rothstein new undercover name contest — and thank you all for your creative entries.
The swag bag goes to the entrant who proposed the following descriptive nom de plume:
Human sausage casing.
A close runner up:
Way to go kidzzzz!
Onward inside the button-down mind of the Resplendently Robed Ones we go…….
Quiroga v. Citizens Property:
Richard Valuntas, Richard Valuntas, Richard Valuntas, that’s all you ever write about nowadays!
I know, but as Zippy Zygote notes, there is synchronicity in the air.I’ll let Judge Shepherd explain in yet another “I must hold my nose as I write this opinion” opinion:
This is an appeal from an order denying the law firm of Katzman Garfinkel and Rosenbaum’s motion to impress a charging lien on the homeowner’s insurance proceeds for damages caused by two hurricanes. The Katzman law firm secured the proceeds for the benefit of its client and policy insured, Jesse Quiroga, in appreciation for which Quiroga not only terminated the law firm’s contingent fee representation of him, but also sought to shield himself from any responsibility to compensate his counsel by claiming the insurance proceeds are exempt homestead property, not subject to attachment by means of a charging lien. See Art. X, § 4(a),
Hey, that doesn’t seem right!But is it legal?Judge Shepherd, nose firmly in hand, says it is:
Because Quiroga did not and, as a matter of public policy in this State, cannot through an unsecured agreement, such as the contingent fee agreement in this case, enter into an enforceable contract to divest himself from the exemptions afforded him through Article X, section 4(a), see Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So. 2d 850, 853 (Fla. 2007), this Court is compelled to affirm the order under review, the equities of the matter notwithstanding.
So is this a roadmap for yet another way to screw your lawyer?