Rowe factors in Florida

2022These requirements are mandatory.”) (internal citations omitted); (2) the trial court erred by disregarding, without justification, the parties’ stipulation as to costs for the Church’s fee expert and the court reporter, and we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a final order awarding as costs to the Church $2,000 for its expert fee witness and $120 for the court reporter; (3) the trial court erred by awarding $250 as an hourly rate for the Church’s counsel without making express findings as to the majority of the factors set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. R

2022In calculating the hourly rate, the trial court is to consider all eight Rowe factors “except the ‘time and labor required,’ the ‘novelty and difficulty of the question involved,’ the ‘results obtained,’ and ‘[w]hether the fee is fixed or contingent.’” Id.

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2024See Macarty, 29 So. 3d at 435 ; Voronin, 995 So. 2d at 1050 ; Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265 ; Baratta, 891 So. 2d at 1065-66 ; Bayer, 869 So. 2d at 1232 ; Guardianship of Halpert, 698 So. 2d at 939-40 .

2024See Macarty, 29 So. 3d at 435 ; Voronin, 995 So. 2d at 1050 ; Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265 ; Baratta, 891 So. 2d at 1065-66 ; Bayer, 869 So. 2d at 1232 ; Guardianship of Halpert, 698 So. 2d at 939-40 .

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2019See, e.g. , Tullos v. Tullos , 37 So.3d 355 , 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Voronin v. Voronina , 995 So.2d 1049 , 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Beck v. Beck , 852 So.2d 934 , 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; cf. Barber v. Goodwin , 880 So.2d 712 , 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing in part because the trial court's order contained "no findings establishing the basis for the specific amount awarded for fees").

2026The full Rowe analysis, however, is not required for temporary awards, because when “the case is just beginning or has not been tried when an interim allowance is sought, there is no way of knowing many of the Rowe elements, such as who is the prevailing party, how many hours were actually necessary to present the case, what are the results achieved, and so on.” Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

2026The full Rowe analysis, however, is not required for temporary awards, because when “the case is just beginning or has not been tried when an interim allowance is sought, there is no way of knowing many of the Rowe elements, such as who is the prevailing party, how many hours were actually necessary to present the case, what are the results achieved, and so on.” Robbie v. Robbie, 591 So. 2d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

2026Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990) (clarifying Rowe factors).

1995Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990), including application of a "contingency risk multiplier." The Poletzes took the position the firm's fee should be determined by using the Rowe factors but no contingency risk multiplier should be applied.

2024See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that “the lack of a transcript did not preclude appellate review because the order was fundamentally erroneous on its face for failing to make express findings concerning the Rowe factors”); Delmonico v. Crespo, 127 So. 3d 576 , 578–79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating that “[a]n order awarding attorney’s fees is fundamentally erroneous on its face when the trial court fails to make specific findings” as to the factors required by Rowe) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 We conclude that Rosenbloom and De

2024See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that “the lack of a transcript did not preclude appellate review because the order was fundamentally erroneous on its face for failing to make express findings concerning the Rowe factors”); Delmonico v. Crespo, 127 So. 3d 576 , 578–79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (stating that “[a]n order awarding attorney’s fees is fundamentally erroneous on its face when the trial court fails to make specific findings” as to the factors required by Rowe) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 We conclude that Rosenbloom and De

2026See also Perdue, 559 U.S. at 550-51; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 430 n.3 (1983) (acknowledging the twelve factors Johnson articulated for a trial court to consider in determining a reasonable fee); Appalachian, Inc. v. Ackmann, 507 So. 2d 150 , 154 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“Rowe is a lineal descendent of Johnson v. Georgia 5 Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)").

2026See also Perdue, 559 U.S. at 550-51; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 430 n.3 (1983) (acknowledging the twelve factors Johnson articulated for a trial court to consider in determining a reasonable fee); Appalachian, Inc. v. Ackmann, 507 So. 2d 150 , 154 n. 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“Rowe is a lineal descendent of Johnson v. Georgia 5 Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)").

2026Mahoney, 251 So. 3d at 980 ; Schwartz, 965 So. 2d at 833 ; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 722 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

2024See Macarty, 29 So. 3d at 435 ; Voronin, 995 So. 2d at 1050 ; Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265 ; Baratta, 891 So. 2d at 1065-66 ; Bayer, 869 So. 2d at 1232 ; Guardianship of Halpert, 698 So. 2d at 939-40 .

2024See Macarty, 29 So. 3d at 435 ; Voronin, 995 So. 2d at 1050 ; Esaw, 965 So. 2d at 1265 ; Baratta, 891 So. 2d at 1065-66 ; Bayer, 869 So. 2d at 1232 ; Guardianship of Halpert, 698 So. 2d at 939-40 .

2024See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992) (“[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.”).

2024See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992) (“[I]n the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.”).

2024Therefore, the trial court should have included in its order written findings regarding the Rowe factors. 9 of witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been prepared . . . , a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed.” (quoting GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Palenzuela, 208 So. 3d 181, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat.

2024Therefore, the trial court should have included in its order written findings regarding the Rowe factors. 9 of witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been prepared . . . , a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be affirmed.” (quoting GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Palenzuela, 208 So. 3d 181, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat.

2023See Nants, 783 So. 2d at 366 ; see also Schreiber v. Schreiber, 331 So. 3d 874 , 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“In the instant case, Former Wife presented solely expert testimony of fees; there was no properly authenticated fee affidavit or testimony from any of Former Wife’s attorneys, nor did Former Wife introduce Rowe factors to evaluate the reasonableness of the requested fee.

2022Representative of Est. of Burnette, 56 So. 3d 74, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that computation of prejudgment interest is a purely ministerial duty); see also § 55.03, Fla. Stat. (2021) (setting forth rate of interest on judgments or decree); and (5) the trial court erred by failing to include a provision in the Attorney’s Fees Order requiring the Contractor to complete the Fact Information Sheet, and we remand for the trial court to include such a provision in its order, see Fla. R.

2022Representative of Est. of Burnette, 56 So. 3d 74, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating that computation of prejudgment interest is a purely ministerial duty); see also § 55.03, Fla. Stat. (2021) (setting forth rate of interest on judgments or decree); and (5) the trial court erred by failing to include a provision in the Attorney’s Fees Order requiring the Contractor to complete the Fact Information Sheet, and we remand for the trial court to include such a provision in its order, see Fla. R.

2019There is active disagreement in recent case law as to whether there is a “rare” and “exceptional” circumstances requirement in Florida for such a multiplier.4 Recent decisions (Federated National Insurance Co. v. Joyce, 179 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), quashed in Joyce v. Federated National Insurance Co., 228 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2017) (also disapproving such a requirement to the extent raised in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Alvarez, 175 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015))) suggest that such requirements need not be satisfied so long as the other Quanstrom and Rowe factors are properly asses

2019See Joyce, 228 So. 3d at 1136 (Canady, J., dissenting; noting the unequivocal repudiation of the use of such multipliers by the United States Supreme Court in City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)). 4 These circumstances are required to overcome the presumption in federal attorneys’ fee cases that the lodestar figure, with no further multiplier applied, is reasonable.