CHARLES E. LANHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY A. LANHAM, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a divorce case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the wife because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings required under the Rowe factors for calculating reasonable attorney's fees.
No. The trial court erred by awarding attorney's fees without setting forth specific findings as to the Rowe factors, even though the record contained sufficient evidence to support such findings.
[1] A trial court must set forth specific findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and any adjustments for contingency or failu…
[2] An award of attorney's fees is reversible when the trial court fails to make specific findings as to the factors outlined in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[I]n computing an attorney fee, the trial judge should (1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation; (2) determine the reasonable hourly rate for this type of litigation; (3) multiply the result of (1) and (2); and, when appropriate, (4) adjust the fee on the basis of the contingent nature of the litigation or the failure to prevail on a claim or claims.”
Establishes the four-step Rowe test that trial courts must follow when awarding attorney's fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court ordered husband to pay wife's reasonable attorney's fees based on a written schedule of time …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Patient'S Compensation Fund V. Rowe Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Husband raises several points on appeal. We find merit in only one. Husband contends that the trial court erred when it determined the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to wife. We agree.
In Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held:
[I]n computing an attorney fee, the trial judge should (1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation; (2) determine the reasonable hourly rate for this type of litigation; (3) multiply the result of (1) and (2); and, when appropriate, (4) adjust the fee on the basis of the contingent nature of the litigation or the failure to prevail on a claim or claims. Application of the Disciplinary Rule 2-106 criteria in this manner will provide trial judges with objective guidance in the awarding of reasonable attorney fees and allow parties an opportunity for meaningful appellate review.
In addition to considering the hourly rate, the number of hours expended on the case, and the “appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement figures,” the trial court must “set forth specific findings as to these factors.” Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in the case sub judice, the trial court ordered: “[Hjusband shall pay wife’s reasonable attorney’s fees which shall be based upon her attorney’s written schedule of time and services (which shall be furnished to opposing counsel) and a reasonable hourly rate for such services.” By an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court ordered that wife’s attorney “be and he is hereby awarded and allowed fees for his services to the Wife in the premises in the sum of $5,000.00_” The trial court failed to set forth specific findings as to the Rowe factors.
The record contains three affidavits pertaining to attorney’s fees. The first affidavit is from wife’s attorney indicating that he spent 64.5 hours on the case. The second affidavit is from an attorney who opined that $9,675.00 would be a reasonable attorney’s fee. The third affidavit is from an attorney who states that $6,450.00 would be a reasonable attorney’s fee.
While the record contains sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have based its award according to the Rowe criteria, the trial court erred in failing to set forth its specific findings. Shields; Boyle.
Thus, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on attorney’s fees, wherein the tri al judge must set forth his findings in accordance with Rowe.
FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)….1985), in that the judgment fixing the attorney’s fees does not set forth specific findings as to the hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of the application of reduction or enhancement factors. Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Pollack v. Pollack, 517 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as to the allowance of attorney’s fees and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.…
-
Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…dering the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended on the case, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement figures but also to set forth specific findings as to these factors. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1151; see Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). This is what the trial court failed to do and why, as to these fees, this case must be reversed and remanded. In th…1 / 2
-
Wilkins v. Wilkins, 546 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e upon which the trial court could have based its determination. See Foster v. Foster, 528 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); McCann v. McCann, 528 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Shields v. Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Id. at 807-08. In Lanham v. Lanham, 528 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the court also referred to Florida Patient’s Compe…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 485 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Shields v. Lissi Shields, 502 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)