The Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), required that a trial court granting an award of attorneys’ fees must make specific findings regarding the reasonable hourly rates for and the reasonable number of hours expended by the relevant attorneys, as well as regarding the appropriateness of any applicable reduction or enhancement factors. Orders that lacked the specific findings required by Rowe were traditionally deemed fundamentally erroneous on their face. See Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n,928 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008); Johnson v. Amritt,48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A.,698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This position allowed such issues to be raised for the first time on appeal without the need for preservation through a motion for rehearing. See e.g. Voronin v. Voronina,995 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008).

However, recent amendments by the Florida Supreme Court to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530(a) may have shifted this approach. The rule now requires that “[t]o preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(a).

According to the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, the Rowe findings in attorney’s fee awards are now considered “required findings of fact” within the meaning of rule 1.530(a). Jones v. Bank of Am., N.A.,2024 Fla. App. Lexis 8974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Consequently, a trial court’s failure to make the required findings as to the Rowe factors must be raised in a motion for rehearing first, otherwise, a party cannot raise the issue on appeal. Id. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has recognized that rule 1.530(a) superseded its prior case law.

Moreover, the Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida has recently diverged from the traditional stance by holding that an order granting attorneys’ fees without including written findings as to the Rowe factors is not fundamentally erroneous on its face. Julia v. Ramos-Baez, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 6570 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). This decision further underscores the importance of filing a motion for rehearing to preserve objections.

Given these developments, practitioners should err on the side of caution and file a motion for rehearing to preserve objections to insufficient findings in attorney’s fee awards. Failure to do so may result in the waiver of the issue on appeal.