With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court erred by not reserving jurisdiction in the amended final judgment to address his timely filed charging lien. There is no dispute that counsel filed the notice and claim of charging lien before the original final judgment was entered. Thus, counsel perfected his charging lien by providing timely notice. See Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla.1986) (“In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action.”); see also Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983) (“[T]here are no requirements for perfecting a charging lien beyond timely notice.”); Brown v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 614 So.2d 574, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). Notwithstanding a lack of express reservation

A: holding that a mortgage took priority over a judgment lien under real prop  3201 where the mortgage had been executed before but recorded after the institution of a lawsuit to obtain the judgment lien
B: holding that the attorneys charging lien may be asserted and enforced in the civil action which gave rise to the lien claim or in an independent action
C: holding that to be timely the notice of a charging lien must be filed before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment
D: holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed
C.