WPC; &:V9SzX)$:GkBOF9Aުw-uk>>76E @!뼚 iȀ(xLI}Y7>C ZµOхވ8,DKJ6nn)^֍Ec%e\46?a޿:w:N?2CE-{͙3k03ٵ+צsG%;V޹#$2Ɔ Yz!:ey1 Ƌ ,r$%q6s~ FRLMe\dms3{`␷8J(h;A( xs\޼{Yxɵf)ĕòB53P@&5(|9R}$ rJ4eGsoQ/UFӝAF̪,*,f:5 y|3$E:?N/7L?R"r#<UN %S 0:Y 1 72 1uL 72 0c 1V 72 0w 1 72 ^ ?wK4Ocr mt 0 0 1 72< 1n 72 1' 72 1 72g 1 72  1R 72 1  72 1 72K 1} 72 16 72 1 72vN 1 721 1c 72 1 72 1 72\ 1 72 1G 72 1 72U NE 1  72 1 72I 1{ 72 0U4 0 0l! 0L" 0)# 0$ 0$ 0% 0& 0CM' 0' 0a( 0/) 0) 0* 0+ 0I, 0- B- 0@- 0. 0. 0/ 00 0E1 02 02 03 0<94u4 0k6 0D7  X7U@b7 17 72)8[8bc8bk8:s8s8s88U@4;  t;~;\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,05CEKQW]cioAutoList1I.1)I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. I.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#0CEKQW[agmAutoList3I.A.A.2I.I.I.I. I.*^/ o=/t/t3|xU(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#0CEKQW]cioAutoList4i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.0JCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.I.A.A.A.A.A.A.(0CEKQW]cioAutoList6i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.0=CEKQW[agmAutoList7I.1.A.2I.I.I.I.I.0CEKQW]cioAutoList81.A.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.!1.0ՃEGMSY_ekqAutoList10I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.#I.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.%1.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList12I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.'I.(ZEGMSY_ekqAutoList13A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.)A.0EGMSY]cioAutoList14A.A.1.2A.A.A.A.+A.(zEGMSY_ekqAutoList151)1)1)1)1)1)1)1).1)(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList16I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.0I.(EEGMSY_ekqAutoList17I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.2I.0UBEGMSY_ekqAutoList18I.1.I.I.I.I.I.I.4I.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList19A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.6A.0?EGMSY_ekqAutoList20I.1)I.I.I.I.I.I.8I.(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList21I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.:I.("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(EGMSY_ekqAutoList22A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.>A.(EEGMSY_ekqAutoList23I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.@I.(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList241.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.B1.*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2   d( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para  bh$USUS.,XX      1    _Thetrialcourtsawardof$37,332includedthe$28,832that_McCrary_ԀrequestedinherNoticeofanAmended e AttorneysLienplusanadditional$8,500for_McCrary_sexpensesincurredbyhavingtopursuelegalactiontocollect ) herfees.(Y(2h$ !USUS.,  XX      0  (#$  0  11(I Z(Times New Roman 0eEGMSY_ekqAutoList25I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I.fI. - -- - 0#Xd# j  } bh$USUS.,XX      2    _Anattorneymayalsohavearetaininglienoveraclientspropertythatisinthepossessionoftheattorney. e _Starks_,20S.W.3dat650.Anattorneymayretainsuchpropertyuntilthefeedisputeissettledoruntiltheclienthas ) providedothersecurity.Id.Aretaininglien,unlikeacharginglien,doesnotcarryanindependentrightofactionagainst  theclient.Id.󀀀(I Z(Times New Roman 12  !USUS.,  __e   <XXXX<jX<X kqOY INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE e @@gg$ATJACKSON#<XX<j# & ^  <X<XApril8,2003Session#<XX<s# L <jX<Xg #<XX<j#  <X<XJOANC._SCHMITT_Ԁv.JAMESCHARLESSMITH  INRE:S.DENISE_MCCRARY_Ԁv.JOANCAROL_SCHMITT_ #<XX<A#   5   @@AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals     CircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  p  @ No.158942_R.D._ԀGeorgeH.Brown,Jr.,Judge \  @*AV=) ` dE<` A߈     %  No.W200001726SCR11CV#XXX<Xj#ԀFiledOctober30,2003 <XXXX  BAV=) ` dE<W` A X #XXX<X鐦#=XXdd=  Theissuesinthiscasearewhetherthelienforattorneysfeeswasproperlypreserved,andifso, S whetheraseparateactionwasrequiredtoenforcethatlien.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthelienhad ? beenproperlypreservedandenforceditintheamountof$37,332.Ondirectappeal,theintermediate + courtreversedthatjudgmentandheldthattheattorneysfailuretonotethelieninthefinaljudgment  asrequiredby_Chumbley_Ԁv.Thomas,198S.W.2d551(Tenn.1947),ortoamendthejudgmentto  includeanotationofthelien,wasfataltothepreservationand_enforceability_Ԁofthelien.Wegranted  permissiontoappealtorevisitandreconsiderthe notationrequirementof_Chumbley_.Aftercareful v consideration,wenowoverrule_Chumbley_totheextentthatitrequiresanattorneyslienbenoted b inthefinaljudgment.Wealsoholdthatthelieninthiscasewasproperlyenforcedinthecourtin N whichthematterwaslitigated.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsand : remandthiscasetothetrialcourtforenforcementofthelienandadeterminationofattorneysfees & onappeal. w  eXXXX  @@DDTenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;#XXXeX #eXXXXJudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsReversed O!  andCaseRemandedtotheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty ;"!   #XXeXK #<XXX_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich% d ԀFrankF.Drowota,III, $# C.J.,andE.RileyAnderson,JaniceM.Holder,#XX<X?#andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,%d% p %pjoined. $ $ MitziC.JohnsonandKay_Farese_ԀTurner,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,S.Denise &r"& _McCrary_. '^#' JamesF.Schaeffer,Jr.,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,JoanC._Schmitt_. )6%) PatriciaM._Worley_ԀandDavidE._Caywood_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheAmicusCuriae,Memphis s+'+ BarAssociation. _,',  K-(- k k8XXdd8j k  _     Opinion =  I.FactsandProceduralHistory       OnApril15,1998,JoanC.Schmitt( Schmitt)filedadivorcecomplaintagainsther   husband,JamesCharlesSmith( Smith).Subsequently,Schmittsoriginalattorneyofrecord  t withdrewandwasreplacedbyS.DeniseMcCrary( McCrary).OnMarch19,1999,Schmittand  ` McCraryexecutedanemploymentagreementthatgrantedMcCraryanattorneyslienastoall  L  property,bothrealandpersonal,includingmoney,assets,alimonyorthingsofvalue,whichwere  8  recovered,obtained,preservedorprotectedforSchmittinthislawsuitoranylawsuitorclaim.Any $  amountSchmittowedMcCrarywastobepayablefromthoseassets. u    OnSeptember15,1999,SchmittandSmithreachedapartialsettlement.OnOctober1, M  1999,McCraryfiledaNoticeofanAttorneysLienwiththeShelbyCountyRegistersOfficeinthe 9  amountof$20,910againstthemaritalresidenceforfeesSchmittowedtoMcCrarythrough % September28,1999.AcopyofthenoticewasmailedtoSchmittpursuanttoacertificateofservice.    OnNovember2,1999,thetrialcourtenteredaninterimconsentdecree,whichreserved,  amongotherthings,theissueofattorneysfees.OnNovember29,1999,afinaldecreewasentered p incorporatingbyreferencetheinterimconsentdecree.Thefinaldecreerequiredthepartiestosell \ theirmaritalhomeandpaytheirownattorneysfees.NomentionwasmadeofMcCraryslien. H   OnFebruary3,2000,Smithfiledapetitiontorequirethesaleofthemaritalresidence.   Thereafter,onFebruary28,2000,McCraryfiledaNoticeofanAmendedAttorneysLienfor q  $28,832andapetitiontoenforcethelien.Asaresult,thetrialjudgeissuedatemporaryrestraining ] orderenjoiningthedistributionofanyproceedsfromthesaleofthemaritalhome.Thetrialcourt I latermodifiedtherestrainingorderandplaced$50,000inescrowpendingafinaljudgmentonthe 5 matter.OnJune13,2000,thetrialjudgeenteredanorderawardingMcCraryatotaljudgmentof ! $37,332.a c#  1      ׀     Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsorder,holdingthatMcCrarys !  attorneyslienhadbeenlostduetoMcCrarysfailureeithertonotethelieninthefinaljudgmentor "l! tofileatimelymotionpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedure59.04toalteroramendthe #X" finaljudgment. $D #   Aftercarefulconsiderationoftherecord,thebriefs,andrelevantcaselaw,wereversethe &"% judgmentoftheintermediatecourtandremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings m'#& consistentwiththisopinion. Y(#'     II.StandardofReview Q 8  B(U83  Theissuepresentedinthiscaseisaquestionoflaw,whichwereviewdenovowithno ) presumptionofcorrectnessaccordedtothefindingsofthecourtbelow.oXXXXStatev.Walls,62S.W.3d  119,121(Tenn.2001);Westonv.State,60S.W.3d57,59(Tenn.2001).#XXXoX!#     III.Analysis  t "  Thisappealpresentsthefollowingissues:1)whetherpreservationofanattorneyslien  L  requiresthatitbenotedinthefinaljudgment;and,ifso2)whetherthelienmustbeenforcedina  8  proceedingseparatefromtheactioninwhichtheserviceswererendered.Wewillfirstconsider $  whetheranattorneyslienmustbenotedinthefinaljudgmentforpurposesofpreservation. u  @ A.ValidityofLien M    TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblycreatedastatutoryattorneyslienwhichprovidesthat %  [a]ttorneysandsolicitorsofrecordwhobeginasuitshallhavealienupontheplaintiffsor  complainantsrightofactionfromthedateofthefilingofthesuit.Tenn.CodeAnn.232102  (1994).Thislien attachestoanyproceedsflowingfromajudgment,aslongasthelawyerworked  tosecurethatjudgmentfortheclient.Starksv.Browning,20S.W.3d645,651(Tenn.Ct.App. p 1999).TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection232103(1994)providesalientoanattorneywhois \ substitutedasplaintiffscounselafteranactionhasbegun.Itprovides: H 8  Anyattorneyorsolicitorwhoisemployedtoprosecuteasuitthathasalreadybeen   broughtinanycourtofrecordshallhavealienupontheplaintiffsrightofaction q  fromthedateoftheattorneysorsolicitorsemploymentinthecase;provided,that ] therecordofthecaseshallfirstbemadetoshowsuchemploymentbynoticeupon I theruledocketofsuchcourt,orawrittenmemorandumfiledwiththepapersinthe 5 case,orbynoticeserveduponthedefendantinthecase.!    f(e08BId.     Fromtherecord,itappearsthatMcCraryassertsherclaimofanattorneyslienpursuantto "l! TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection232102insteadofsection232103.Thesesectionsare #X" mutuallyexclusive,asoneappliestoattorneyswhobeginasuit,andtheotherappliestoattorneys $D # hiredafterasuithasalreadybeenbrought.InrePass,258B.R.170,172(Bankr.E.D.Tenn.2001). %0!$ BecauseMcCrarybeganherrepresentationofSchmittafterthedivorceactionhadalready &"% commenced,herclaimofanattorneyslienispursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection232 m'#& 103.However,theanalysisunderbothofthestatutesisthesame.InrePass,258B.R.at172. Y(#'   ThereisnorequirementinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection232102thatalawyerinclude 1*%) anotationofanattorneyslieninthefinaljudgment.Starks,20S.W.3dat651.Thesameistrue +&* forTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection232103.Rather,thisrequirementwaspromulgatedbythis  ,'+ CourtinChumbleyv.Thomas,198S.W.2d551(Tenn.1947),almostfiftyyearsafterenactmentof e thestatute.InChumbley,thecomplainantattorneyhadnotedthelieninthefinaldecree.Id.at551. Q Thedecree,however,hadbeenalteredbeforerecordingsoastoremovethenotationoftheattorneys = lien.Id.ThisCourtdecidedthatanattorneymaynotbenefitfromalienunlessthelienisnotedin ) thefinaldecreeinwhichtheserviceswererendered.Id.at552.ThisCourtreasonedthat otherwise  therewouldbenonoticetothepublicorasubsequentpurchaser.Id.     ItisapparentfromthelanguageinChumbleythattheprimaryconcerninthatcasewas  t notice.AlthoughinChumbleythisCourtheldthatalienmustbenotedinthedecreeinwhichthe  ` serviceswererendered,wedidsoonthebasisthatthepublicandsubsequentpurchaserswouldhave  L  noothernoticeofthelien.Id.;seeStarks,20S.W.3dat651.InChumbley,thedefendantwas  8  merelytoldofthelien,andnothingformalwasfiled.198S.W.2dat261. $    Inthecaseundersubmission,McCraryprovidedadequatenoticeofherattorneyslienonthe a  maritalresidence.Shefiledbothanoticeofanattorneyslienandanamendednoticeofan M  attorneyslienintheShelbyCountyRegistersOffice.McCraryalsomailedcopiesofbothliensto 9  Schmitt.Thus,McCrarygaveSchmitt,thepublic,andanysubsequentpurchasers,noticeofherlien % againstthemaritalresidence.    Inaddition,wefindthefollowinglanguageinStarkstobepersuasive:  8  Whileanoticerequirementiscertainlysalutaryinsofarasthirdpartiesareconcerned, \ ithaslessimportanceindisputessolelybetweenthelawyerandhisorherclient.In H thesesortsofdisputes,noticeisnotaproblembecausetheclientknewthatthe 4 lawyerexpectedtobepaidwhenheorsheacceptedtheclientscase.    20S.W.3dat651.Inthecaseunderreview,Schmitthadsignedanemploymentagreementwith ] McCraryacknowledgingthatalienwouldbeplacedonherproperty.Schmittnevercontestedthe I termsoftheagreement,nordidshesuggestthatshewasunawareofthetermsoftheagreement. 5 Therefore,weareoftheopinionthatSchmittcannotnowclaimthatMcCrarydidnotprovideher ! withpropernoticeofthelien.     SchmittcontendsfurtherthatevenifthisCourtconcludesthatanattorneyisnotrequiredto !  notealieninthefinaljudgment,thenoticeMcCraryfiledwiththeShelbyCountyRegistersOffice "l! wasinsufficientbecauseitfailedtocomplywithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection203101 #X" (1994).Thatstatuteprovidesthatwhenapersonseekstofixalienlispendens, anabstract, $D # certifiedbytheclerk,containingthenamesofthepartiestosuchsuit,adescriptionoftherealestate %0!$ affected,itsownership,andabriefstatementofthenatureandamountoftheliensoughttobefixed &"% mustbefiledwiththeRegistersOfficeofthecountyinwhichthepropertyislocated.Tenn.Code m'#& Ann.203101(a).Thestatutefurtherprovidesthat [u]ntilsameissofiled,sofarasconcernsthe Y(#' rightsofbonafidepurchasersandencumbrancers,forvalue,oftherealty,oranyinteresttherein, E)$( theyshallnotbeaffected.Id.203101(b).SchmittassertsthatMcCrarysnoticefailedtogive 1*%) adescriptionoftherealpropertyuponwhichthelienwastobeenforcedandfailedtoidentifythe +&* owners.  ,'+ Ї  WeconcludethatSchmittwaivedthisissueforfailuretoraiseitinthecourtsbelow. e Regardless,weconcludethatMcCraryproperlyperfectedthelienbyfilingnoticeofanamended Q attorneyslienalongwithanabstractofsuitonFebruary28,2000.AlthoughMcCrarysoriginal = noticeofalienfailedtogiveadescriptionofthepropertyoridentifytheowners,heramendednotice ) containedalloftherelevantinformationasrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection203101.  ThisamendednoticecoincidedwithMcCraryspetitiontoenforceherattorneyslien.Weconclude   thattheamendednoticewithanabstractofsuitsatisfiedtherequirementsofsection203101.     Wewouldalsopointoutasamatterofpracticethatrequiringanotationofthelientobe  ` includedinthefinaljudgmentisnotalwayspractical.Incaseswherecounselwithdrawsoris  L  dischargedfromacasepriortoitsconclusion,thatattorneymaynotbeabletodraftorinfluencethe  8  languageusedinthefinaljudgment.Therefore,iftheruleisthatanattorneymustensurethathis $  orherlienisnotedinthefinaljudgment,theattorneywhodoesnotconcludethecasemaybeleft u  withoutaremedyforattorneysfees. a    Thus,weholdthatsolongasadequatenoticeofthelienisprovidedtothepublicandto 9  futurepurchasers,therequirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections232102and232103 % aresatisfied.Wealsonote,asdidtheCourtinStarks,thatnoticemaynotbenecessarywhenthe  disputeissolelybetweentheclientandattorney.InsofarasChumbleyconflictswiththisholding,  itisoverruled.Chumbley,however,maystillapplyinsituationswherenoticewasnotprovided.  @;;B.EnforcementofLien \   Becausetheintermediatecourtdeterminedthatthelienwasinvalid,itdidnotaddressthe 4 secondaryissueofenforcement.Accordingly,wemustdeterminewhetherthetrialcourthad   authoritytoexecuteonthelienandenterajudgmentforMcCrary. q    Thelieninthiscaseisacharginglienn c#  2      ׀attachedtotheproceedsgeneratedfromthesaleof I thepartiesmaritalhome. Whileacharginglienservestosecureanattorneysfees,itdoesnot 5 functionasanadjudicationoftherightsbetweenthelawyerandhisorherclient.Starks,20S.W.3d ! at652(citingPiercev.Lawrence,1S.W.204,20506(Tenn.1886)).Thus, [a]trialcourtmay   declaretheexistenceofanattorneyslieninthesuitoutofwhichthedisputeregardingtheattorneys   feearose,butordinarilyanattorney,notbeingapartytotheproceeding,maynotobtainajudgment !  withrespecttohisorherfeeinthataction.Id.(citingStatev.Edgefield&KentuckyR.R.,63 "l! Tenn.92,97(1874);Perkinsv.Perkins,56Tenn.(9Heisk.)95,9798(1871)). #X"   Althoughanattorneymustgenerallycommenceaseparateproceedingtoenforcehisorher %0!$ contractualrighttoafee,anexceptionhasbeencarvedoutinwhichthetrialcourtmayexert &"% jurisdictionwherethemoneyorpropertythatisthesubjectofthelien comeswithinthecontrolof m'#& thecourtinthecaseinwhichtheserviceswererendered.Id.at653.InStarks,theCourtof e Appealsheldthattheliendidnotfallwithinthenarrowconfinesoftheexceptionbecausethelien Q involvedapostjudgmentdisputebetweentheattorneysandtheclientoverlegalfeesandexpenses. = Id. )   Wehavehereadivorceactioninwhichthetrialcourtadjudicatedthedistributionofthe   maritalpropertyownedbySchmittandSmith.TheresidencethatwasthesubjectofMcCraryslien   wasincludedinthemaritalpropertyultimatelydividedbythetrialcourt.Assuch,thepropertyupon  t whichthelienwastobeenforced,thehouse,waswithinthecontrolofthetrialcourt.  `   Nevertheless,SchmittcitestoPalmerv.Palmer,562S.W.2d833(Tenn.Ct.App.1977),for  8  thepropositionthattheexceptionenunciatedinStarksdoesnotapplyindivorceactions.However, $  thefactsinthiscasearedistinguishablefromthoseinPalmer.InPalmer,acoupledivorced,andthe u  trialcourtawardedthewifeacertainpieceofpropertyaspartofthedivorcesettlement.562S.W.2d a  at835.Thetrialcourtalsofoundthatthewifesattorneyswereentitledto$12,000infeesand M  orderedthehusbandandwifeeachtopay$6,000.Id.at836.Thecourtthenplacedalienonlyon 9  thewifespropertyforher$6,000shareoftheattorneysfees.Id.Thewifesattorneyswereallowed % tointerveneinthecause,andtheyarguedthatthelienonthewifespropertyshouldhavebeenfor  theentire$12,000.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,statingthatit  couldnotagree thattheallowanceofa$12,000.00feetobepaidonehalfbythewifeandonehalf  bythehusbandtherebycompelsthetrialjudgetodeclarealienfortheentire$12,000.00against p propertyawardedtothewife.Id.at839.Thus,PalmerdoesnotsupportSchmittsargument. \ Rather,thecourtinPalmeraddressedthequestionofwhetherthewifesattorneyscouldassertalien H onthewifespropertyforafeewhichthehusbandhadbeenorderedtopay.Id.at838.Infact,the 4 CourtofAppealsnotedthat a[t]rial[c]ourtmay,toadegree,ruleupontherightsofcounselagainst   hisclient,andthatiswhencounselseeksthedeclarationandenforcementofhislienagainstthe q  fundsorpropertyrecoveredbyhisefforts.Id.at839.Therefore,weholdthatthetrialcourt ] properlyadjudicatedtheattorneyslieninthiscase. I   However,Schmittcontendsthatevenifthedivorceactionwasoriginallyinthetrialcourts ! jurisdiction,therewasnoactionpendinginwhichMcCrarycouldhavepursuedherpetitionbecause   McCrarydidnotfileheramendedlienuntilthreemonthsafterthedateofthefinaljudgment.As   wehaveheldthatMcCrarygavepropernoticeofherattorneyslienbyfilingitintheShelbyCounty !  RegistersOffice,weconcludethatsuchnoticewassufficienttobringtheactionwithinthe "l! jurisdictionofthedivorcecourt.Further,althoughtheamendedlienwasfiledafterthedateofthe #X" finaljudgment,McCraryhadfiledtheinitiallienwellbeforethatdate.Moreover,atthetime $D # McCraryfiledthepetitiontoenforceherlien,thepetitiontorequirethesaleofthemaritalresidence %0!$ waspending.Thus,thesubjectofthelienwasstillwithinthejurisdictionofthetrialcourt. &"%   Finally,wenotethatitisintheinterestofjudicialeconomytoallowthesamecourttohear m'#& allmattersregardingthepropertyinquestion.Forcingthepartiestoproceedinaseparateaction Y(#' withajudgeunfamiliarwiththeunderlyingfactsofthedivorceactionwouldcausebothpartiesto E)$( incuradditionalattorneysfees,costs,andlitigationexpenses.Therefore,weholdthatthetrialcourt 1*%) inthiscasehadjurisdictiontoadjudicateMcCrarysattorneyslien. +&*   ,'+   IV.Conclusion e  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @ deXXXX  #XXXeXd#Inaccordancewiththeforegoing,wereversetheCourtofAppealsandremandthiscauseto = thetrialcourtforenforcementofthelienandadeterminationofattorneysfeesonappeal.Costsof ) thisreviewaretaxedtotheappellee,JoanC.Schmitt,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.eXXXX  #XXXeX鐑f#0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#___________________________________ t(#(#    `     h   ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE