Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
Whose burden is it to prove that requested attorney’s fees and costs are warranted in a Florida family law case? This was an issue in the case Jackowska v. Blessitt, 2D2024-2826 (Fla. 2d DCA January 23, 2026).
The parties were divorced by final judgment, and the court reserved jurisdiction to resolve attorney’s fees issues. The former wife filed an affidavit of her attorney’s fees and costs which totaled $73,763.71. She then filed her motion for fees and costs, to which the former husband responded that he did not have the ability to pay. After a hearing, the trial court found the former wife had a need for fees, but it significantly reduced the fees claimed by the former wife on the basis that her counsel’s fee statements contained bulk billing entries and the former wife caused unnecessary litigation. The former wife appealed.
The appellate court noted “[W]here the trial court reduces the requested fee amount, even without regard to the lodestar amount, it must provide a specific explanation pursuant to Rowe. Id. at 189. And ‘the absence of the required findings in the written order renders the order . . . erroneous on its face.’ Harris v. McKinney, 20 So. 3d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, 891 So. 2d 1063, 1065 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).” The court held “Here, the trial court's order as written merely states the reasonable hourly rate. It does not make any findings as to the reasonable number of compensable hours as required by Rowe, and its failure to do so is erroneous.”
The court held “Furthermore, the trial court's conclusion that ‘[t]he former wife has the sole burden of proof to support her request for attorney's fees and costs’ is incorrect. It is true that the Former Wife as the fee applicant has the initial burden of establishing an entitlement to an award of attorney fees. However, the Former Husband as ‘the opponent of the fee has the burden of pointing out with specificity which hours should be deducted.’ And he did not do so.” (internal citations omitted).
The court concluded “In its order, the trial court accepted the Former Husband's argument that ‘many of the entries in the fee affidavit were grouped together and described multiple tasks on a particular date.’ However, there is no further explanation or findings as to the specific entries to be deducted. The Former Husband further suggested that the Former Wife had engaged in misconduct, which increased each party's attorney fees. The trial court agreed, concluding in the final order that ‘there was unnecessary behavior from the wife that caused an increase in fees.’ However, to the extent that the trial court may have intended to deduct some portion of the Former Wife's fees and costs as a sanction for litigation misconduct, it was required to make specific findings that support the reduction factors and explain what portion of the fees incurred were occasioned by the misconduct in question. See Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Here, the trial court failed to correlate the allegations of misconduct to any specific attorney fees incurred by the Former Wife.”
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.