Ehiabor v. Ehiabor
In an interlocutory appeal from a nonfinal order awarding temporary alimony ($700/month) and $50,000 in temporary attorney's fees, the First DCA held that a party need not file a motion for reconsideration to preserve a challenge to missing statutorily required findings in a nonfinal order, because rule 12.530's rehearing-preservation requirement now applies only to final judgments and no motion tolls the 30-day appeal window. On the merits, the court distinguished its prior decision in Williams and held that the 2023 amendments adding 'temporary' alimony to section 61.08 now require written findings of fact for temporary alimony awards, and that temporary fee awards under section 61.16 require findings on need, ability to pay, and reasonableness (hourly rate and hours). Both awards were reversed and remanded, the fee award also failing for lack of evidence because the fee affidavit was never admitted.
Key facts
- Husband and wife were parties to a family law dispute; the trial court awarded temporary alimony of $700 per month and $50,000 in temporary attorney's fees without written findings of fact.
- Husband appealed interlocutory from the nonfinal order awarding temporary alimony and temporary attorney's fees, challenging the sufficiency of the trial court's findings.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a significant clarification on two fronts family practitioners face constantly. First, it resolves the preservation trap for interlocutory appeals of temporary support orders — no motion for reconsideration is… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.