the cases cited above, including its own earlier case in Riley. To the extent that our holding in this case appears to conflict with LaRoche, we certify conflict. VI. ALIMONY On cross-appeal, the Wife contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for alimony. We disagree for two reasons. First, while the Wife did seek an award of alimony in her cross-petition for dissolution, during the three-day dissolution hearing, she did not request alimony nor did she present any evidence whatsoever concerning her need for alimony. When a party fails to present any evidence or make any argument at a dissolution hearing in support of a request for alimony, the trial court is entitled to believe that the claim has been abandoned. See Moss v. Moss, 939 So.2d 159, 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). Second, based on the evidence that was
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 holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those 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 that under the wpcl an employee who has prevailed on a claim for past wages due is entitled to attorneys fees as a matter of entitlement