rendering of a judgment, when the judgment itself awards one party attorney’s fees and costs.” Hart, 919 So.2d at 669. The Fifth District then concluded that it would be superfluous to require a party to file a motion seeking to tax fees and costs where that party already has a judgment that awards it fees and costs. Id. at 669. Our precedent and the plain language of rule 1.525 prevent us from following Hart. In Gulf Shores, L.L.C. v. Riverwood Community Development District, 927 So.2d 246, 247-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), we held that “[e]ven if a trial court enters an order finding that a party is entitled to fees but reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount, the party must still serve a timely motion under rule 1.525.” See also Molloy v. Flood, 884 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). Thus rule 1.525 is a bright-line rule that is
holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding that service of a notice of hearing where the final judgment reserved jurisdiction as to attorneys fees and costs did not comply with rule 1525 holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs