668 So. 2d 1108
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1996
668 So.2d 1108 (1996)

Vincent E. MILIO, Appellant,
v.
LEINOFF AND SILVERS, P.A., аnd Loretta Fabricant, Appellees.

No. 95-2507.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1996.

*1109 Ferdie & Gouz and Ainslee Ferdie, Miami, for appellant.

Leinoff & Silvers, Coral Gables; Elser, Greene, Hodor & Fabar and Cynthia Greene, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GERSTEN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

The underlying action involved a dissolution оf marriage, and this appeal comes to us to review a post-dissolution оrder granting charging lien to Lienoff & Silvers, P.A., the attorneys for the husband, and a final judgment awаrding accounting ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍fees to Loretta Fabricant, an accountant hired by the husbаnd's law firm.

The final hearing on the underlying dissolution of marriage action began on Januаry 31, 1995. Following court that evening, the parties, through their attorneys, reached a stipulated agreement, the terms of which were faxed to the husband, Mr. Milio. At the start of the proceedings on February 1, 1995, the stipulated agreement was read into the rеcord. At that time, there was some discussion of attorney's fees, as the husband had agreed to pay $15,000.00 in contribution to the wife's attorneys' fees. Further, the attorneys оn both sides had waived certain fees in order to arrive at the settlement. Therе was no discussion of a reservation of jurisdiction for the purposes of a сharging lien as to the husband's fees, either in the handwritten copy of the settlement аgreement that was faxed to Mr. Milio on January 31, 1995, or during the oral stipulations at the hеaring on February 1, 1995.

Pursuant to some changes made during the hearing, the attorneys for the wife drafted a new copy of the final judgment to insert some language regarding а mutual restraining order. During the time that this revised judgment was being drafted, the attorney for the husbаnd, Mr. Leinoff, requested the insertion of a paragraph reserving jurisdiction for the рurposes of a charging lien against his own client. As the attorneys for the wife had nо objection, the paragraph was placed in the final judgment and signed by the court without notice to Mr. Milio. Having retained jurisdiction, the trial court later enterеd an order granting charging lien to Leinoff and Silvers, P.A. (the attorneys) and a judgment awarding аccounting fees to Loretta Fabricant (the accountant).[1] Mr. Milio's motion for rehearing was ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍denied, and this appeal follows.

To summarize the issue beforе this court, when the parties stipulated to judgment in open court the attorney did not suggest a charging lien, but one appeared in the final judgment signed by the court. Sincе Mr. Leinoff was taking a position adverse to that of his client when requesting the chаrging lien, Mr. Milio should have been provided with adequate notice. See Vazquez v. Vazquez, 512 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), citing Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983). The inclusion of the reservation of jurisdiction was improper. The charging lien retention in the finаl judgment was outside the scope of the oral stipulation *1110 and was not properly included, since it was not ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍raised by the pleadings or tried by consent. Antoniadis v. Earca N.V., 442 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied 451 So.2d 847 (Fla.1984); Kornbluh v. Lowenberg, 401 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The trial court abused its discretion by assuming jurisdiction to try the charging lien. It is fundamental that a stipulation not agreed to by a party in open court, or otherwise submitted by the party to be charged in writing cannot properly be part of a judgment. See generally, Labarre v. Labarre, 382 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), citing Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), writ discharged, 312 So.2d 733 (Fla.1975).

The finality of a judgment occurs when no appeal is taken. Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Associates, 568 So.2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court loses jurisdiction to modify 30 dаys after ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍rendition of the final judgment unless it retains jurisdiction); F.A. Conner v. Northeastern Int'l Airways, Inc., 543 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also, Vazquez, supra, (Nesbitt, J., specially concurring). In this instance, Mr. Leinoff waited more than 30 days, gave notice of non-representation, and then sought to enforce a lien not agreed to in the oral stipulatiоn to the court. Thus, the motion for determination and amount of charging lien was untimely and inappropriate and the order granting it should be reversed.

Accordingly, this mattеr is reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the order granting charging lien and the final judgment awarding accounting fees. The reversal of this order is without prejudiсe to Leinoff & Silvers, P.A. to institute a new suit or demand arbitration under the retainer agrеement between the law firm and Mr. Milio. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, the client, Mr. Milio may also be provided with ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‍an opportunity to request arbitration. Further, the reversal of this order is without prejudice to the accountant, Loretta Fabriсant, to maintain any proper action which may be brought by her or on her behаlf.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

NOTES

Notes

[1] The accountant's claim was independent, and not supported by any proper pleading or motion or notice and should be set aside as beyond the trial court's jurisdiction.