proposed final judgments and responses, and in fact, the wife actually filed a response to the husband’s proposed final judgment. Finally, a comparison of the trial court’s final judgment and the husband’s proposed final judgment indicates that the trial court’s final judgment was not a verbatim adoption of the husband’s proposed final judgment and that the final judgment was not “so one-sided in its findings and conclusions that it could only reflect the views of the party that drafted and proposed it.” Perlow, 875 So.2d at 390 n. 5. The trial court actually ruled in the wife’s favor on her claim for assault and battery, even though the husband’s proposed final judgment suggested otherwise, and made other substantive changes. See Chivari v. Ferrell, 909 So.2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, unlike Perlow, there is no
holding that a motion to declare and enforce an attorneys lien must be entertained by the court in the action in which the judgment was rendered provided client is given an opportunity to obtain new counsel and there is a final judgment in the case which the claiming attorney helped secure through his services in the litigation holding that exhaustion would have been futile because the florida supreme court previously rejected the same claim in other cases and counsel for the state had not suggested any reason why the florida courts would have decided petitioners case differently holding that florida supreme courts decision in perlow was distinguishable because the proposed judgment was furnished to the other side and afforded an opportunity to object and because of the changes made in the judgment by the court holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion