With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". lien.”). In Doug Hambel’s Plumbing, Inc. v. Conway, 883 So.2d 375, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the trial court originally entered a judgment for and awarded damages to the plaintiff but denied plaintiffs request for a mechanic’s lien. The Fifth District reversed the denial of the mechanic’s lien, and the trial court entered a final judgment imposing a mechanic’s lien. Id. The plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees under section 713.29, Flor onfinal because it did not dispose of all of the claims in the complaint. See Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237, 1240 (Fla.1987) (“A final judgment is one that determines the rights of the parties and disposes of the case on its merits, leaving nothing more to be done in the cause except execution.”); cf. Caldwell v. Finochi, 909 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court erred in

A: holding that a judgment for attorneys fees may be rendered in the nature of child support regardless of whether the underlying action is one of enforcement or modification
B: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification because the childs increased need for support and the former husbands ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wifes petition for modification was filed
C: holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees
D: holding that the order on the wifes petition for modification of child support was a final order because it disposed of all the issues except for the ancillary issue of attorneys fees
D.