Background
Dr. Timothy Ehiabor, a physician, and Adriana Ehiabor, a part-time house cleaner and Colombian national, were parties to a short-term marriage and had one child together. During the pendency of their dissolution proceedings in Escambia County Circuit Court, Ms. Ehiabor moved for temporary spousal support and attorney’s fees. At the time of the hearing, Dr. Ehiabor was already paying $3,500 per month in child support and covering her rent by agreement of the parties.
At the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Ehiabor testified she needed an additional $658 per month to cover car payments. On attorney’s fees, she could not recall the amount incurred, and while her attorney referenced a fee affidavit (Wife’s Exhibit 12) showing approximately $30,000 in fees to date and anticipated total fees of $38,900, that exhibit was never formally moved into evidence. The trial court nonetheless awarded $700 per month in temporary alimony—more than Ms. Ehiabor requested—and $50,000 in temporary attorney’s fees, with no written findings of fact supporting either award.
Dr. Ehiabor timely appealed the nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), which permits interlocutory appeal of orders granting immediate monetary relief in family law matters. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to make required findings and by relying on evidence that was never admitted.
The Court’s Holding
The First DCA reversed both awards and remanded for further proceedings. On a threshold procedural question, the court held that a party is not required to file a motion for reconsideration before pursuing an interlocutory appeal of a nonfinal temporary support order on grounds of insufficient findings. Because motions for reconsideration—unlike motions for rehearing in final judgment cases—do not toll the 30-day deadline to appeal a nonfinal order, requiring preservation through reconsideration would place an appellant in an impossible position: the trial court might not rule before the appeal window closes, and once a notice of appeal is filed the trial court loses jurisdiction over the order. The court also clarified that Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530’s rehearing-preservation requirement applies only to final judgments, not nonfinal orders.
On the merits of the temporary alimony award, the court held that the 2023 amendment to section 61.08, Florida Statutes—which expressly added “temporary” alimony to the statute and mandated “written findings of fact regarding the basis for awarding” alimony—overrides the prior rule announced in Williams v. Williams, 365 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023). Applying the doctrine of in pari materia, the court harmonized section 61.08 with section 61.071 (the temporary alimony statute), holding that both can coexist: section 61.071’s “well founded” evidentiary burden on the requesting spouse and section 61.08’s written-findings obligation on the trial court operate independently and do not conflict. The trial court’s bare directive to pay $700 per month—without any findings of need, ability to pay, or explanation for exceeding Ms. Ehiabor’s own requested amount—was reversible error.
On the attorney’s fees award, the court held that section 61.16 requires the trial court to make findings on (1) each party’s need and ability to pay and (2) the lodestar—reasonable hourly rate multiplied by reasonable hours expended or reasonably anticipated. A full Rowe-factor analysis is not required for temporary fee awards, but the lodestar finding is mandatory even for interim orders. Here, the sole fee affidavit was never admitted into evidence; counsel’s unsworn statements from the podium cannot substitute for record evidence. Nor did the court make any lodestar findings. The $50,000 award was therefore unsupported.
Key Takeaways
- Parties appealing nonfinal temporary support orders on insufficient-findings grounds need not first file a motion for reconsideration to preserve the argument; Florida Rule 12.530’s preservation requirement applies only to final judgments.
- The 2023 amendment to § 61.08, Fla. Stat. requires trial courts to make written findings of fact—including need, ability to pay, and duration—when awarding temporary alimony, overriding the contrary result in Williams v. Williams (2023); sections 61.08 and 61.071 are harmonized, not in conflict.
- Written findings for temporary alimony need not address the § 61.08(3) multi-factor test (which applies only to bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, and durational alimony), but must address need, ability to pay, award amount, and duration.
- For temporary attorney’s fees under § 61.16, the trial court must make findings on financial need/ability to pay and the lodestar (reasonable rate × reasonable hours); full Rowe analysis is not required.
- Counsel’s unsworn statements about fee amounts are not a substitute for admitted evidence; practitioners must formally move fee affidavits into evidence at the hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a significant gap in Florida family law by extending section 61.08’s written-findings mandate to temporary alimony—a requirement that was expressly absent under prior case law. Trial courts handling pendente lite support hearings must now produce written findings addressing need, ability to pay, and duration, even for temporary orders issued early in a case. The decision also provides practitioners with a clear roadmap on appellate preservation: because motions for reconsideration of nonfinal orders do not toll the appeal clock, a party facing a defective temporary support order can appeal directly without risking waiver, while still being encouraged to seek reconsideration promptly so the trial court can self-correct while the matter is fresh.
The attorney’s fees ruling reinforces that lodestar findings are non-negotiable in Florida family law fee awards at every stage of litigation, not just at final judgment. Combined with the reminder that unadmitted exhibits cannot support an award, the decision underscores the importance of meticulous evidentiary practice at temporary relief hearings—proceedings that are often treated as informal but carry real financial consequences subject to appellate scrutiny.