Failure to File a Motion for Rehearing Challenging the Trial Court’s Failure to Make Required Factual Findings Bars Appeal
The Fourth District in Jones v. Bank of America, 2024 WL 4829995 (Fla. 4th DCA November 20, 2024) recently had the opportunity to interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s amendment to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(a).
Specifically, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.530(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to add a requirement that to preserve an argument on appeal that the trial court’s findings were insufficient, you must address the sufficiency of the findings in a motion for hearing. The text provides:
Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment.
In October 2023, the Florida Supreme Court further tweaked the language of rule 1.530(a) to provide:
Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. 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. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment.
This amendment cleared up what was previously a district split of whether a motion for rehearing is necessary to preserve an argument on appeal that the trial court’s findings were insufficient. The ramifications of this amendment in given factual scenarios are constantly evolving. All litigators must stay abreast of how appellate courts interpret this amendment to preserve clients’ appellate rights.
In Jones, the Fourth District strictly interpreted this amendment, which had severe consequences for the appellee. In Jones, the trial court amended a final judgment to add appellate attorneys’ fees and additional trial court fees. The trial court’s amended final judgment lacked the required findings regarding a reasonable hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriate reduction or enhancement factors. Jones did not move for rehearing but instead appealed the amended judgment because it was “fundamentally erroneous on its face.” The Fourth District recognized the line of cases holding that a judgment for attorneys’ fees is fundamentally erroneous on its face when it fails to include these required findings, but held that these cases were superseded by the 2023 amendments to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(a). The Fourth District determined that findings required to be included in attorneys’ fees awards are the “required findings of facts” within the meaning rule 1.530(a) as amended and, therefore, the trial court’s failure to make the required findings was not preserved for appellate review because a motion for rehearing was not filed in the trial court. The takeaway, when in doubt, file a motion for rehearing.
Rosenthal Law Group has the civil litigation and appellate experience necessary to help successfully navigate the intricacies of the Florida rules of civil and appellate procedure. Rosenthal Law Group handles all litigation through the appellate process and is available for all your litigation, including any appellate, needs.