appeals from the amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to Donald L. Card, the Former Husband. The only is 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirming the amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage but dismissing as premature the trial court’s ruling only determining entitlement to fees because the issue was “not ripe for appeal” until the trial court determined the amount of the fees to be awarded). Counsel for the Former Wife also argues that the f jurisdiction over the charging lien, the trial court is not foreclosed from considering the charging lien in this action because the issue of attorney’s fees and costs has not been finalized and the trial court reserved jurisdiction for that purpose. See Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So.2d 1158, 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. DAVIS,
holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees 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 trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that the husbands failure to argue his entitlement to attorneys fees under a prenuptial agreement at a hearing held on the issue of entitlement to attorneys fees constituted an abandonment of that claim