MARTY INGRAM, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY PETERS INGRAM, WIFE, 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 this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of $2,500 in attorneys' fees to the former wife because the court failed to make the specific findings required by law, but affirmed all other aspects of the divorce judgment.
Yes. The trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees without making the required findings. The case is reversed as to the attorneys' fees award and remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings, while all other aspects of the final judgment are affirmed.
[1] A trial court must set forth specific findings regarding the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement fac…
[2] A trial court's failure to make required findings for an attorneys' fees award may be grounds for reversal and remand.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When awarding attorneys' fees, the trial court must 'set forth specific findings regarding the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors as mandated by the supreme court in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).'”
Establishes the mandatory requirements for any attorneys' fees award in Florida
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarty Ingram appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court awarded his former wife, Mary Peters Ingram, $2,500 in attorneys' f…
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
Marty Ingram, the former husband, appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises several issues, only one of which has merit. Specifically, we agree with the former husband that the trial court erred in awarding the former wife $2,500 in attorneys’ fees without making the required findings. Consequently, we reverse as to the attorneys’ fees issue but affirm all other aspects of the final judgment without further comment.
When awarding attorneys’ fees, the trial court must “set forth specific findings regarding the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors as mandated by the supreme court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).” Teat v. City of Apalachicola, 880 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In circumstances where the record may contain competent, substantial evidence to support these specific findings, but the trial court’s order omits such findings, the case should be remanded for entry of an appropriate order. Id.; see also Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing the trial court’s order requiring the former husband to pay $10,000 of the former wife’s attorneys’ fees even though the record “appealed] to contain sufficient evidence to support the ... award” due to the court’s failure to make the findings required by Rowe). However, in some cases, the trial court’s failure to make the required findings may qualify as harmless error. See, e.g., Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So.2d 971, 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (trial court’s oral pro*149nouncement at an evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees that it arrived at its $11,250 fees award by multiplying seventy-five hours of work times $150 an hour rendered the court’s failure to make the explicit findings required by Rowe harmless); see also Teat, 880 So.2d at 821 (Wolf, J., concurring) (discussing the application of the harmless error test in the context of Rowe).
In this case, the former husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $2,500 of the former wife’s attorneys’ fees because it failed to set forth specific findings required by Rowe. We agree. Neither the final judgment of dissolution nor the transcript of the proceedings below contains the requisite findings. Only the former wife’s testimony addressing a $2,500 initial payment she made to her attorney appears to correspond to the $2,500 award, which the trial court deemed “reasonable” without explanation in its final judgment. This error was not harmless. Consequently, we reverse the trial court’s order with respect to the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded and remand for the purpose of making the necessary findings. Teat, 880 So.2d at 820 (identifying this form of relief).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haywald v. Fougere, 164 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…’s fees sought by the former wife ($6500 of $14,787.88 requested) was reasonable. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203-05 (Fla.1980). But the trial court did not explain how the $6500 was calculated as is required. See Ingram v. Ingram, 59 So. 3d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court must “set forth specific findings regarding the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of the reduction or enhancement factors”) (citing Fla. Patient’s Compensation Fund v.…
-
Nalasco v. Buckman, 171 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…e fee order and remand to the trial court. Delmonico v. Crespo, 127 So. 3d 576, 578-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners’ Ass’n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); see also Ingram v. Ingram, 59 So. 3d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“In circumstances where the record may contain competent, substantial evidence to support these specific [*763] findings, but the trial court’s order omits such findings, the case should be remanded for entry of an appropri…
-
Fredrick Scire v. Hochman, 268 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…. “In circumstances where the record may contain competent, substantial evidence to support these specific findings, but the trial court’s order omits such findings, the case should be remanded for entry of an appropriate order.” Ingram v. Ingram, 59 So. 3d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.2 Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * *…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Wanda and Eric Teat v. City OF Apalachicola, 880 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)