From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Pearl

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 30, 1982
411 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Summary

In Perez we found that a judgment establishing liability but not determining or fixing a monetary amount of damages was merely an expectancy and therefore did not constitute a cognizable lien.

Summary of this case from Penzell v. M M Const. Group Corp.

Opinion

No. 81-562.

March 30, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Herbert M. Klein, J.

Horton, Perse Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Ratiner Glinn, Miami, for appellant.

Lyons Smith and Allen Kominsky, Miami, John Kirk McDonald, Coral Gables, and Claudia B. Greenberg, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.


Like the threat of a lawsuit or the filing of a complaint, a judgment establishing liability but not determining or fixing any monetary amount of damages does not constitute a cognizable lien pursuant to Section 55.10, Florida Statutes (1979). It is simply an expectancy.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Perez v. Pearl

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 30, 1982
411 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

In Perez we found that a judgment establishing liability but not determining or fixing a monetary amount of damages was merely an expectancy and therefore did not constitute a cognizable lien.

Summary of this case from Penzell v. M M Const. Group Corp.
Case details for

Perez v. Pearl

Case Details

Full title:JUAN PEREZ, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHNNY PEREZ, A MINOR…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 30, 1982

Citations

411 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Penzell v. M M Const. Group Corp.

The final judgment obtained by the DEP on February 12, 2003 (recorded on April 16, 2003, thereby creating a…

In re Wald

It is simply an expectancy." Perez v. Pearl, 411 So.2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Additionally, the judgment…