Guardian. of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, Pa, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Guardian. of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, Pa, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: WILLIAM A. JULIA v. MELISSA RAMOS-BAEZ (fladistctapp, 2024-08-23) · Strongest negative: Ortiz v. Ortiz (fladistctapp, 2017-09-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Ortiz v. Ortiz (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“In the instant case, the lack of a transcript does not hinder this court's ability to review the trial court's order, because on its face it fails to satisfy Rowe by not making any specific findings as to hourly rate or number of hours reasonably expended.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WILLIAM A. JULIA v. MELISSA RAMOS-BAEZ
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Merriman, 338 So. 3d at 1085-86; Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 939-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); R.M.A., 269 So. 3d at 652 ; Frezza, 216 So. 3d at 760 ; Jacobs v. Jacques, 310 So. 3d 1018 , 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Ivanovich v. Valladarez, 190 So. 3d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Harris, 20 So. 3d at 403 ; Voronin v. Voronina, 995 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); 5 Markovich v. Markovich, 974 So. 2d 600, 600-01 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Esaw, 965 So. 2d at …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. MEGHAN ANDERSON (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Wolfe v. Nazaire, 758 So. 2d 730, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing and remanding attorneys' fees award despite lack of a transcript where court failed to explain its reasons for using a multiplier); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So. 2d 938, 939-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding attorneys' fees award despite lack of transcript where order failed to contain findings as to the hourly rate or the number of hours reasonably expended); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing and remanding attorneys' fees award despite…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Meyer v. Watras
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Thorpe v. Myers, 67 So.3d 338, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Simboni v. Chambliss, 843 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bishop v. Estate of Rossi
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So.2d 890, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCabe, 763 So.2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So.2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sanford v. Howard
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Simhoni v. Chambliss, 843 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. Mitchell
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thorpe v. Myers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See Simhoni v. Chambliss, 843 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Jones, 661 So.2d at 942 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. McKinney (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ass'n, 898 So.2d 259, 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bader v. Meros, Smith & Olney, P.A., 916 So.2d 6, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). [5] I acknowledge that in Boyle, 485 So.2d at 879 , this court reversed because "[a]lthough... the record contain[ed] sufficient, competent evidence upon which the trial judge could have based its award according to the criteria as set forth in Rowe , neither the record nor the order set[ ] forth any specific findings as required by Rowe . " The opinion, however, did not explain why R…
examined Cited as authority (rule) New White Linen, Inc. v. Commercial Laundry Equipment Co. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1152 (Fla.1985); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simhoni v. Chambliss
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So.2d 890, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Tutor Time Merger Corp. v. MeCabe, 763 So.2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So.2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see" Mark L. Jones v. Bank of America, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See 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 Rosen…
cited Cited "see" ERIC CARL FISCHER v. ANGELA DORIS FISCHER
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). 3
discussed Cited "see" Graham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that Rowe findings are mandatory and where an order lacks such findings, the lack of a transcript does not preclude appellate review because reversible error is apparent on the face of the order); see also Bayer v. Glob.
cited Cited "see" Moyle v. PARKLAND CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that Rowe findings are mandatory).
discussed Cited "see" Bader v. Meros, Smith & Olney
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (stating that Rowe [1] findings are mandatory) (cited in Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov.19, 2004) (holding final judgment for attorney's fees and costs fundamentally erroneous on its face for failure to include specific Rowe findings)).
cited Cited "see" Bayer v. GLOBAL RENAISSANCE ARTS, INC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that Rowe findings are mandatory).
cited Cited "see" Ross v. Botha
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Reed v. Reed
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see" Wolfe v. Nazaire (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Parton v. PALOMINO LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
An order awarding attorneys' fees is "fundamentally erroneous on its face" when the trial court fails "to make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985)." Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); see also Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938, 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Baratta v. VALLEY OAK HOMEOWNERS'ASS'N
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Guardianship of Halpert v. Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., 698 So.2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (stating that Rowe findings are mandatory).
GUARDIANSHIP OF Max HALPERT, Appellant,
v.
MARTIN S. ROSENBLOOM, P.A., Appellee.
96-2326.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sep 10, 1997.
698 So. 2d 938
Stone.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

[*939] Jonathan A. Heller and Avi J. Litwin of Geiger, Kasdin, Heller, Kuperstein, Chames & Weil, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Martin S. Rosenbloom of Martin S. Rosenbloom, P.A., for Appellee.

STONE, Chief Judge.

We reverse an award of attorney's fees, albeit reluctantly, as the order awarding the fees fails to set forth findings as to the time reasonably expended, the hourly rate, or other factors, if any, considered. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). These requirements are mandatory. See, e.g., D & D Hotdogs & Beef, Inc. v. Plantation Fountains Assocs. L.P., 634 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Greer v. Greer, 637 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Gross v. Albertson's, Inc., 591 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (remanding attorney fee order because final judgment did not contain the specific findings required by Rowe); T.G.G. v. P.M.L, 661 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(reversing judgment awarding attorney fees where trial court failed to make specific findings regarding the number of hours appellee's counsel reasonably expended). Compare, Blits v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 647 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (failure to make the required findings may be deemed harmless error where the trial court stated on a transcribed record how it had arrived at the attorney fee award by multiplying a designated number of hours by a specified rate per hour).

We do so reluctantly, because the trial court proceedings were not transcribed, and therefore a transcript will not be available to assist the trial court on remand. We are unable to deem the error harmless, as unlike the circumstances in Blits, the required findings do not appear elsewhere in our record.

The failure of Appellant to furnish a transcript does not preclude appellate review in the instant case because reversible error appears on the face of the order. See Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Giltex Corp. v. Diehl, 583 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Giltex, the defendant objected to an order awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees where the order failed to set forth specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors pursuant to Rowe. However, the defendant failed to submit a transcript of the proceeding. The court held 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.

Similarly, in Fowler v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Defuniak Springs, 643 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) the court reversed an attorney fee award, despite the Appellant's failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, where the final judgment failed to set forth the specific findings required by Rowe. The court reasoned that "[w]hile the award of attorney fees may[*940] very well have been based on competent, substantial evidence, the lack of a transcript and the absence of any specific findings in the final judgment supporting the award compels reversal." Id. at 33.

In the instant case, the lack of a transcript does not hinder this court's ability to review the trial court's order, because on its face it fails to satisfy Rowe by not making any specific findings as to hourly rate or number of hours reasonably expended. The order merely provides that, "The Court awards a lump sum for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the total amount of $3,200.00." Were we writing on a clean slate, we might consider this error harmless, particularly as the award does not involve a multiplier enhancement. At a minimum, we might impose a waiver by the offended party's failure to draw the error to the attention of the trial court. This would have been particularly appropriate here, given the relatively low amount of the award, a little over three thousand dollars.

Unfortunately, a new evidentiary hearing will be required in this case, as this court has previously relinquished jurisdiction to provide the trial court with an opportunity to amend the order with specific findings, however the court was unable to amend its order because of its inability to recall what happened at the initial hearing. Nevertheless, Rowe requires us to reverse and remand the order granting attorney's fees for further proceedings. As to the other issue raised, we affirm on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.