## Facts

- Kiriakos Kiriakidis (husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Zolinda Kiriakidis (wife) after a marriage of about five years.
- The wife filed a counterclaim seeking annulment, alleging the husband fraudulently entered the marriage to obtain immigration benefits and that she lost pension and Social Security-related benefits as a result.
- The husband moved to dismiss the wife’s annulment counterclaim as legally defective; the motion was pending when the wife’s attorney sought to withdraw.
- The wife’s attorney moved to withdraw citing irreconcilable differences and the wife’s failure to complete a required financial affidavit.
- After a hearing the wife did not attend, the trial court:
  - Granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw,
  - Recognized a charging lien in the attorney’s favor, and
  - Ordered that the wife must satisfy or make arrangements to pay the charging lien before any substitute attorney could appear for her.
- The same day, the trial court granted the husband’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim but allowed the wife 20 days to file an amended counterclaim.
- The wife did not receive notice of the withdrawal/charging-lien order and the dismissal-with-leave-to-amend order until 15 days after entry, leaving only five days to amend.
- The wife moved pro se for an extension of time to amend and later, through newly retained counsel, moved for rehearing/relief from the order conditioning substitution of counsel on payment of an undetermined and disputed attorney’s fee.
- The trial court denied rehearing/relief and denied an extension of time to amend.
- The proceedings culminated in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which the wife appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by conditioning the wife’s ability to substitute new counsel on satisfying a charging lien for attorney’s fees that were not agreed upon and had not been adjudicated.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the wife an extension of time to file an amended annulment counterclaim when she received late notice and was effectively unable to secure counsel because of the lien condition.

## Decision

- Reversed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and remanded for further proceedings.
- Held it was error to condition the wife’s right to obtain substitute counsel on payment of her former attorney’s bill where the fee was disputed and had not been fixed by agreement or court determination.
- Held the trial court also erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to permit the wife to file an amended pleading under the circumstances.
- Concluded that the combined effect of the two rulings required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court may recognize an attorney’s charging lien, but enforcement of a disputed, unliquidated fee claim must proceed through proper fee or lien proceedings rather than by blocking a party from retaining substitute counsel.
- Conditioning substitution of counsel on payment of fees that have not been agreed upon or adjudicated improperly interferes with a litigant’s right to be represented by counsel of choice in civil litigation.
- Decisions on extensions of time are discretionary, but denying additional time may be reversible error when late notice and loss of counsel prevent a party from timely amending a pleading after dismissal with leave to amend.
- When procedural rulings operate together to prevent representation and foreclose a reasonable chance to correct pleadings, reversal may be required to restore a fair opportunity to litigate.

## Conclusion

The Fourth District reversed the dissolution judgment because the trial court improperly required the wife to satisfy an unresolved charging lien before new counsel could appear and then denied her additional time to amend her annulment counterclaim despite late notice, a combination that denied her a fair chance to proceed with counsel and plead her claim.


Kiriakidis v. Kiriakidis, 855 So. 2d 208 (2003)