Summary of the Case
In Robert M. Cohen v. Katya L. Cohen n/k/a Katya Stubblefield (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the appellate court addressed a narrow but important question in Florida family law: must a party present expert testimony to prove the reasonableness of attorney’s fees in a Chapter 61 case?
The former husband had prevailed in a post-divorce enforcement dispute and sought attorney’s fees under the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA). The circuit court denied his motion, reasoning that he failed to present an independent expert witness to testify about the reasonableness of his fees. The Fourth District reversed.
The appellate court held that section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2024), expressly removes the expert-testimony requirement in all Chapter 61 proceedings—including enforcement actions arising from an MSA. Because the circuit court already found that the former husband was the prevailing party and that his fees were reasonable, the appellate court directed that the fees be awarded on remand.
This opinion clarifies that in family-law cases, parties need not hire a fee expert just to confirm that their lawyer’s rates and hours are reasonable. A Tampa divorce lawyer can now rely on attorney testimony and billing records alone when seeking fees in Chapter 61 proceedings.
1. The Context of the Dispute
The Cohens divorced under a marital settlement agreement that required the husband to pay modest child support. Two years later, the former wife filed a motion for contempt alleging he failed to pay. The husband countered that a separate written agreement, signed before the final judgment, changed the arrangement. Under that writing, the parents agreed to contribute directly to their children’s needs and not seek child support unless one acted in bad faith.
A magistrate concluded that the separate agreement was valid. Because the former wife did not prove that the children’s needs were unmet, the motion for contempt failed. The circuit court adopted that ruling.
Having prevailed, the husband sought attorney’s fees under paragraph 16 of the MSA, which awarded fees to the prevailing party in any enforcement action. The court agreed that he had prevailed and that his fees were reasonable. Still, it denied the motion because he had not presented independent expert testimony on fee reasonableness.
That single procedural issue became the center of the appeal.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can face the same situation in enforcement hearings, where the outcome turns not on the merits but on whether a technical proof requirement was met.
2. The General Rule and Its Exception
Florida’s general civil rule has long required independent expert testimony to support attorney-fee claims. The logic is that courts should not rely solely on an attorney’s opinion about his own work. Cases such as Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone and Robin Roshkind, P.A. v. Machiela adopted this principle in commercial and tort contexts.
But Chapter 61 proceedings have always been different. Divorce, custody, and support cases involve an ongoing obligation to ensure fairness based on relative financial positions. Recognizing that constant expert testimony would burden families, the Legislature amended section 61.16 in 1993 to state explicitly that “an application for attorney’s fees, suit money, or costs, whether temporary or otherwise, shall not require corroborating expert testimony.”
The statute’s language covers all proceedings under Chapter 61, not only temporary hearings. That includes dissolution actions, enforcement motions, and appeals.
In Cohen, the trial court acknowledged this exception but misapplied it. It treated the fee claim as purely contractual under the MSA rather than as part of a Chapter 61 enforcement proceeding. The Fourth District corrected that view: because the motion arose within a family-law case governed by Chapter 61, the statutory exception controlled.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can now cite Cohen v. Cohen to avoid needless expert-witness expense when seeking fees in similar circumstances.
3. Why the Court Reversed
The appellate court relied on earlier decisions—Moore v. Kelso-Moore (4th DCA 2014) and Fetchick v. Fetchick (5th DCA 2022)—that had already applied the same reasoning. In both, the courts held that fee experts were unnecessary because section 61.16(1) expressly removes that requirement.
The Cohen court emphasized three points:
- The Legislature eliminated the expert-testimony requirement for all Chapter 61 proceedings.
- The husband’s motion, although grounded in an MSA, arose within a Chapter 61 case.
- The trial court had already found the fees reasonable and the husband the prevailing party.
The appellate court therefore remanded for entry of an order awarding fees.
This outcome reinforces efficiency. Family-law judges may rely on counsel testimony, billing records, and cross-examination rather than expert witnesses.
A Tampa divorce lawyer who documents hourly rates, total time, and specific tasks can meet the burden of proof without hiring an expert witness.
4. The Broader Implications for Florida Families
For clients, this decision means fewer expenses and faster resolutions. Expert-witness fees can cost thousands of dollars, sometimes exceeding the amount in dispute. Removing that barrier aligns with the Legislature’s goal of improving access to justice in family courts.
For attorneys, it simplifies the process. They can present fee evidence through testimony and exhibits showing:
- Hourly rates;
- Total hours worked;
- Nature of services rendered;
- Case outcome and prevailing-party status.
A judge may then evaluate reasonableness based on experience and the evidence presented.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can apply these principles in motions for enforcement, modification, or contempt, as well as in appeals arising from such orders.
5. How Section 61.16 Works
Section 61.16 serves two major purposes:
- Equalizing access to legal representation. Courts may award fees so both parties can secure competent counsel regardless of income differences.
- Authorizing reimbursement for prevailing parties. Many MSAs incorporate fee-shifting clauses that mirror the statute’s fairness goals.
The statute allows courts to consider financial resources and to award “a reasonable amount” for attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs. It expressly states that no corroborating expert testimony is required.
In Cohen, the husband’s request fit neatly within that language. Even though his claim relied on an MSA clause, the motion still qualified as “any proceeding under this chapter.” The appellate court’s interpretation ensures consistency with the legislative text.
A Tampa divorce lawyer should reference section 61.16(1) whenever filing or defending a fee motion in family court, even if the MSA also contains a fee-shifting clause.
6. Avoiding the Trial Court’s Mistake
The circuit court erred because it separated the contractual basis for fees from the statutory context. Future practitioners can avoid that problem by:
- Citing both the contractual provision and section 61.16(1) in fee motions.
- Including language that the proceeding arises under Chapter 61.
- Presenting attorney testimony and detailed billing summaries.
- Noting the legislative exception in oral argument.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can file a short memorandum quoting the statute’s key sentence. This ensures the judge applies the correct rule and avoids sua sponte research that leads to denial.
7. Efficient Proof of Reasonableness
Although experts are unnecessary, attorneys must still prove their fees are reasonable. Judges consider:
- The time and labor required;
- The difficulty of the questions involved;
- The skill required to perform the service;
- The customary fee in the locality;
- The results obtained.
These are the Rowe factors from Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe (1985). They remain valid.
An attorney can satisfy them through sworn testimony and documentary evidence. Billing logs, invoices, and affidavits are enough.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can further support reasonableness by referencing typical local hourly ranges and providing a short affidavit describing experience level.
8. How This Impacts Fee Hearings in Tampa
Family-law divisions in Hillsborough County hold frequent post-judgment hearings. Many involve enforcement of MSAs or parenting plans. The Cohen case simplifies those hearings: the lawyer who performed the work may testify about time and rates, and the court can make findings directly.
This avoids calling outside experts who may not know the case and who add cost and delay.
A Tampa divorce lawyer should prepare a clean fee packet:
- Cover sheet summarizing hours and total amount;
- Billing ledger with date, task, and time;
- Short sworn statement on rates and experience;
- Copy of the MSA fee clause and section 61.16(1).
That presentation now satisfies Florida law after Cohen.
9. Relationship Between Contract and Statute
Some attorneys worry that a contractual fee clause transforms the case into a commercial dispute. Cohen rejects that concern. When a fee request arises from enforcing an MSA or parenting plan, it remains a Chapter 61 matter. The statutory exception applies.
In contrast, if an MSA required arbitration or was litigated in a separate civil action outside Chapter 61, the general rule might return. But in family court, section 61.16(1) governs.
A Tampa divorce lawyer who practices both family and civil law must keep this distinction clear: family-law enforcement stays under Chapter 61 even when contracts are involved.
10. Practical Effects for Clients
The decision reduces cost, shortens hearings, and promotes fairness. It also discourages tactical denials of fee motions based on missing experts. Clients who prevail in enforcement actions can expect quicker reimbursement.
For spouses who fear paying fees, the ruling does not remove judicial discretion. The court still assesses financial ability, reasonableness, and prevailing-party status.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can explain that the statute protects both sides by requiring transparent billing and realistic rates, even without an expert witness.
11. Key Takeaways from Cohen v. Cohen
- Expert testimony is not required for attorney-fee awards in any Chapter 61 proceeding.
- Section 61.16(1) applies to dissolution, enforcement, modification, and appeal stages.
- The proceeding’s context controls, not the fee clause’s wording.
- Judges may rely on attorney testimony and detailed billing records to determine reasonableness.
- Efficiency and cost-saving are legislative goals supported by this ruling.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can use these points to educate both clients and courts during fee hearings.
12. How the Decision Promotes Access to Justice
Family-law litigants often face economic imbalance. One spouse may have control of most assets or income, leaving the other at a disadvantage. By removing the expert-testimony requirement, section 61.16(1) ensures that limited resources are spent on advocacy, not procedure.
The appellate court’s reaffirmation in Cohen reinforces that policy. Families can resolve disputes about fees more efficiently, which in turn encourages settlement and compliance.
For Tampa families, this translates into more predictable outcomes and less financial strain. A Tampa divorce lawyer can now allocate client funds toward case strategy instead of expert preparation.
13. Building a Fee Motion After Cohen
Step 1: Identify Authority
Cite both the contract and section 61.16(1), explicitly stating that the proceeding arises under Chapter 61.
Step 2: Prepare Evidence
Gather billing records, rate sheets, and a short affidavit from counsel summarizing experience, rate, and total hours.
Step 3: Provide Notice
Serve the motion with enough time for the opposing side to review and, if desired, challenge reasonableness.
Step 4: Present Testimony
Have the attorney testify to hours, rate, and necessity. Opposing counsel may cross-examine. The court decides reasonableness.
Step 5: Request Findings
Ask the court to enter written findings that identify prevailing-party status, rate, and total amount.
A Tampa divorce lawyer following this structure will comply fully with Cohen v. Cohen and section 61.16(1).
14. Future Litigation and Legislative Consistency
Because every district court now aligns on this issue, Cohen may close the debate statewide. It harmonizes the Fourth and Fifth Districts and confirms that the legislative amendment applies across the board.
For ongoing legislative review, this case shows how clear statutory language can remove procedural traps that previously wasted resources.
A Tampa divorce lawyer should continue monitoring appellate updates, but for now the rule is stable: no expert needed.
15. The Human Dimension
Beyond statutory interpretation lies a practical truth. Divorce litigation already carries emotional and financial weight. Adding the cost of expert witnesses for fee hearings only multiplies stress. The Cohen decision acknowledges that reality. It lets judges decide reasonableness based on firsthand familiarity with the case.
A Tampa divorce lawyer who handles both complex and straightforward family cases benefits from this clarity. Clients can focus on resolution rather than technicalities.
16. Conclusion
- Cohen v. Cohen * streamlines attorney-fee litigation in Florida family courts. The decision confirms that when a case arises under Chapter 61, corroborating expert testimony is not required. Judges may rely on the attorney’s own testimony, billing records, and the surrounding facts to set a fair fee.
For families across Florida, and especially for those navigating post-judgment enforcement in the Tampa area, the case represents progress toward accessible justice.
If you face a fee dispute or need guidance on enforcement or modification proceedings, consult an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer who understands how Cohen v. Cohen changes the landscape of fee awards in family law.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does Cohen v. Cohen decide?
It holds that in any Chapter 61 family-law case, an attorney seeking fees does not need an independent expert witness to prove reasonableness.
2. Does the ruling apply to all divorce and support cases?
Yes. Section 61.16(1) covers every proceeding under Chapter 61, including dissolution, enforcement, and modification.
3. Can a judge still deny fees if no expert is presented?
Only if the attorney fails to provide other competent evidence, such as testimony or billing records. A Tampa divorce lawyer can satisfy that burden through detailed documentation.
4. What evidence replaces expert testimony?
The attorney’s sworn testimony, billing logs, rate sheets, and case results. The court can weigh these without outside experts.
5. Does this mean every prevailing party automatically gets fees?
No. The court must still find prevailing-party status or financial need and ability to pay, depending on the case.
6. What if my marital settlement agreement has its own fee clause?
You can rely on both the contract and section 61.16(1). The statutory exception still removes the expert-testimony requirement.
7. How can I prepare for a fee hearing after this decision?
Collect invoices, prepare a short summary of hours, and be ready to testify. A Tampa divorce lawyer can organize the materials for you.
8. Will this change reduce my overall costs?
Yes. You will no longer need to hire an additional expert solely to confirm reasonableness, saving time and money.
9. What if the opposing party challenges my rates?
The court can resolve disputes through cross-examination and judicial experience. Detailed records strengthen your position.
10. Why is this case important for Tampa families?
It ensures fair, affordable access to fee recovery in family-law cases. A Tampa divorce lawyer can use this precedent to streamline hearings and protect client resources.
If you have questions about recovering or defending attorney’s fees in your Florida divorce or enforcement case, contact a Tampa divorce lawyer for tailored guidance. Proper preparation under Cohen v. Cohen can secure a fair and efficient outcome.