Fifth DCA Affirms Fee Award and Clarifies Rule 1.530(a): A Procedural Shift Every Litigator Should Know

Procedural rules can make or break an appeal. A recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal, Platt v. Cape Marine Services, Inc., underscores that reality. Our firm, Widerman Malek, successfully defended a trial court’s attorneys’ fee award that the appellant sought to overturn based on missing factual findings.

The Fifth DCA’s opinion confirms that under the 2023 amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a), failing to raise that issue in a motion for rehearing means it is not preserved for appeal. This case provides clarity and an essential reminder for every trial and appellate practitioner in Florida.

The Background: Understanding “Rowe Findings”

In Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe (1985), the Florida Supreme Court established that when awarding attorney’s fees, trial courts must include specific findings of fact:

• The reasonable hourly rate
• The number of hours reasonably expended
• Any applicable enhancement or reduction factors

These requirements, known as “Rowe findings,” were intended to ensure meaningful appellate review. Historically, if a judgment lacked those findings, appellate courts would often reverse and remand.

The Rule Change and What It Means

In October 2023, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.530(a), adding the following key language:

“To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”

In plain terms, if a trial court’s order/judgment lacks the necessary factual findings, a party must first file a motion for rehearing to give the court a chance to correct it before filing an appeal. Without that motion, the issue is considered waived.

This change represents a significant shift in procedure and places a new responsibility on trial counsel to protect the record for appeal.

The Case: Platt v. Cape Marine Services, Inc.

In Platt, the trial court awarded Cape Marine attorney’s fees  in defense of the lawsuit and a dismissal of Plaintiff’s case just days before a summary judgment hearing. The appellant argued that the order did not include the required Rowe findings and should, therefore, be reversed.

However, the appellant never filed a Rule 1.530 motion for rehearing to raise that issue. The Fifth DCA affirmed the judgment by agreeing with the Fourth DCA’s decision in Jones v. Bank of America (2024).

The court held that:

• The Rowe findings are “findings of fact” under Rule 1.530(a).
• The rule change now supersedes earlier Fifth DCA cases..
• Because the appellant did not file a motion for rehearing, the issue was not preserved for appeal.

This outcome confirms that Florida appellate courts are enforcing the preservation requirement under the amended rule.

Why This Decision Matters

This decision goes a long way to  bringing greater consistency to appellate practice across Florida’s districts.

• No rehearing means no appeal.
• The change applies to fee awards, alimony orders, damages judgments, and any ruling requiring factual findings.
• Trial lawyers must act quickly after a final judgment to preserve those findings.

The takeaway is simple: missing a Rule 1.530 rehearing motion can have a significant effect on  a client’s right to appeal, even when there are valid substantive arguments to make.

What Florida Litigators Should Take Away

The Platt decision underscores that civil procedure preserves rights. A timely rehearing motion is essential if a final judgment lacks the perceived required findings of fact. Giving the trial judge a chance to correct or clarify the order protects the client and strengthens the record for potential appellate review.

For attorneys and clients alike, this case serves as a reminder that successful appeals start long before the notice of appeal is filed – they begin with careful attention to trial-level procedure.

Why This Matters to Businesses and Clients

This case does not just affect lawyers; it impacts every business and individual who relies on them.

• Protecting appeal rights: If an attorney misses a procedural step, a company could lose the ability to challenge an improper judgment or a costly attorney’s fee award. That could mean tens of thousands of dollars at stake.
• Hiring experienced counsel: This decision highlights the critical importance of hiring lawyers who understand the law’s substance and the procedural rules that protect your interests.
• Preventing financial risk: Many commercial disputes involve contracts with fee-shifting provisions. If your attorney fails to act under Rule 1.530 when a judgment lacks findings, your right to appeal the fees is lost entirely.
• Ensuring accountability: Firms like Widerman Malek monitor procedural changes closely and take proactive steps to protect clients at every stage of litigation. That diligence provides absolute financial and legal security for businesses navigating complex disputes.

This decision is a clear reminder for business owners, executives, and in-house counsel that procedural experience is a form of protection and choosing the right legal team can make all the difference.

About the Author

Eric L. Hostetler is a litigation attorney at Widerman Malek, P.L. in Melbourne, Florida. His practice focuses on commercial disputes, appellate work, and complex trial support. Eric represents businesses and individuals in state and federal courts throughout Florida and is dedicated to ensuring clients are protected at every stage of the litigation process.