Few moments in a family law case land harder than opening an order that says you owe your former spouse nearly $100,000 in legal fees. It is one of the questions we hear most often as a Tampa divorce lawyer: can a judge really make me pay my ex’s attorney? The short answer is yes — but not casually, and not without the judge putting specific findings on paper first.
In January 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal decided Crane v. Crane, No. 3D24-2262 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 14, 2026), a case that illustrates both halves of that answer. A former wife was ordered to pay $95,271.55 in her ex-husband’s attorney’s fees after being held in contempt of court. She appealed and lost nearly every argument she raised. But she won on one — and that single point is worth understanding, because it applies to fee orders in Tampa Bay just as much as it does in Miami.
This post walks through what happened, what the court actually held, and what it means practically if you are facing a fee request in your own case.
What Happened in Crane v. Crane
The opinion is short, so the picture is deliberately sketched rather than painted. Here is what we know.
The case came out of Miami-Dade County and was, in the appellate court’s own words, high-conflict and post-dissolution — meaning the divorce itself had already been finalized years earlier. The lower tribunal number dates the file to 2017. What remained was the long tail that follows some divorces: enforcement motions, compliance disputes, and repeated trips back to the courthouse.
At some point in that history, the trial court found the former wife in contempt of court — a finding that she had violated a court order. Following that contempt finding, the court entered a final order requiring her to pay the former husband $95,271.55 in attorney’s fees.
She appealed. Notably, she appealed in proper person, the formal term for representing yourself without a lawyer. Her former husband was represented by two separate firms on appeal.
The Third District’s assessment of her appeal was blunt. She raised what the court called “a myriad of issues,” and all but one were either meritless or could not be reviewed at all. The court then found a single defect in the fee order, reversed on that narrow ground, and sent the case back.
That is the whole opinion. But the one issue she won on is a genuinely important piece of Florida family law.
The Starting Point: Everyone Pays Their Own Lawyer — Until They Don’t
To understand the ruling, start with the background rule. Florida follows what courts call the American Rule: each side pays its own attorney unless a statute or a contract says otherwise.
Family law is one of the significant exceptions. Section 61.16 of the Florida Statutes authorizes a court to order one spouse to pay the other’s attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs in proceedings under Chapter 61 — including enforcement and modification proceedings that happen long after the divorce is final.
The purpose behind the statute is fairness, not punishment. Florida courts have long said the goal is to make sure both spouses have similar ability to obtain competent legal representation, so that the wealthier spouse cannot simply outspend the other into submission. If one person can hire a seasoned Florida divorce attorney and the other cannot afford anyone, the process stops being a fair contest.
There is a second, distinct route to a fee award as well. Florida courts can shift fees as a sanction for genuinely bad-faith litigation conduct — filing frivolous motions, ignoring orders, dragging out proceedings for no legitimate reason. The Florida Supreme Court recognized this authority in Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2002), but hedged it with a requirement: a sanction award has to rest on express findings of bad faith conduct tied to the specific amounts awarded. It is not a general license for a frustrated judge to redistribute legal bills.
And in Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court held that judges deciding fee requests under section 61.16 may look beyond raw finances to other relevant circumstances — including whether one party’s conduct unnecessarily increased the cost of the litigation.
So there are real pathways for a fee award, and misconduct genuinely can matter. What Crane addresses is what any such order has to say on its face.
Need and Ability to Pay: The Two Findings That Have to Be There
Here is the heart of the decision. The Third District concluded the fee order was facially deficient because it failed to reflect whether the former husband had a need for the fees and whether the former wife had the present ability to paythem.
“Facially deficient” is legal shorthand for a simple idea: you can tell the order is defective just by reading it. The appellate court did not need to comb through hearing transcripts or weigh evidence. The required findings were not on the page.
Those two findings are the traditional foundation of a Florida family law fee award:
- Need asks whether the requesting spouse genuinely requires help paying for representation, given their income, assets, and obligations.
- Present ability to pay asks whether the other spouse can actually afford to cover those fees right now — not whether they might someday, and not whether they earned well during the marriage.
The word present carries weight. A judge cannot order someone to pay from money they do not have.
Florida courts have also emphasized that this is not box-checking. As the First District put it in Green v. Green, 650 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), a determination of one spouse’s need and the other’s present ability to pay is a legal conclusion — something the court must actually reason to and state, supported by the financial record. Appellate courts throughout Florida have reversed fee awards for the absence of these findings, including the Fifth District in Hammad v. Hammad, 146 So. 3d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), and the Fourth District in Du Perault v. Du Perault, 270 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
What the Third District Decided — and What It Did Not Decide
This is where careful reading matters, and where a lot of internet summaries of cases like this go wrong.
The Third District reversed and remanded solely for that determination. Those words are doing real work. The court did not throw out the fee award. It did not find $95,271.55 unreasonable. It did not disturb the contempt finding. It did not order a new hearing on the underlying dispute.
What it did was send the case back to the trial judge to address a specific gap: make the findings on need and ability to pay that the order was missing.
For the former wife, that is a meaningful but limited victory. She now gets a determination she was entitled to and did not receive. Depending on what the record shows about the parties’ finances, the outcome on remand could be a substantially reduced award — or the same $95,271.55, this time properly supported.
It is worth being clear-eyed about that, because appellate wins in family law are often narrower than they first appear. “Reversed” does not mean “erased.” It frequently means “do this part again, correctly.” Managing that expectation is part of what a good Tampa family law attorney does for a client considering an appeal.
One more procedural note: the opinion carries the standard notation that it is not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing. Newly released opinions can be modified, so anyone relying on a recent decision should confirm its current status.
Why a Miami Case Matters in a Hillsborough County Divorce
A fair question: why should someone going through a Hillsborough County divorce care about a Miami-Dade case?
Two reasons.
First, the requirement is statewide. Section 61.16 applies in every Florida circuit, and appellate courts in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Districts have all reversed fee awards that omitted these findings. This is settled ground, not a regional quirk.
Second — and this is the detail worth pausing on — in reaching its conclusion the Third District relied on a Second District decision. In Goulding v. Goulding, 368 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023), the Second District held that an order awarding fees as a sanction for a wife’s contempt was facially deficient because it failed to address whether the wife had the present ability to pay and whether the husband had a need for the award.
The Second District is the appellate court that hears cases from Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, DeSoto, Hardee, and Highlands Counties. Which means Goulding is not persuasive authority in Tampa — it is bindingauthority here.
And Goulding addresses precisely the fact pattern in Crane: a fee award following a contempt finding. The lesson is that labeling a fee award as a consequence of contempt does not automatically excuse the court from the need and ability analysis. If you are looking at a fee order in a Tampa Bay case that skipped those findings, Goulding is the case your attorney will be reaching for.
The Arguments That Failed, and the Quiet Lesson About Transcripts
The former wife raised many issues. She won one. The reasons the others failed are instructive.
Fee awards need evidence — and the husband apparently had it. The court cited Brewer v. Solovsky, 945 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), for the principle that a fee award requires competent, substantial evidence: invoices, records, and other documentation detailing the services provided, plus testimony from the attorney supporting the fee. The citation signals that this evidentiary showing had been made.
Expert testimony was not required. The court also cited Cohen v. Cohen, 414 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), for the proposition that a party seeking fees is not always required to present a separate expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the request. Historically, Florida practice often called for an independent fee expert. This is an area where the law has been shifting, and it is one more reason to work with a Florida divorce attorney who tracks current appellate developments rather than relying on how things were always done.
And then there is the transcript problem. The most quietly significant citation in the opinion is Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). Applegate stands for a rule that has ended countless Florida appeals before they began: without a record of the trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot properly resolve the underlying factual issues. If there is no transcript, the appellate court presumes the trial judge got it right.
That is almost certainly what the court meant when it said some of the former wife’s issues “evade our review.” Not that they were wrong on the merits — that they could not be evaluated at all.
Here is why this matters to you, concretely: in Florida family court, a court reporter is not automatically provided. If you want a transcript of your hearing, someone has to arrange and pay for a reporter. Skipping that expense feels like a reasonable economy in the moment. It can quietly forfeit your right to a meaningful appeal.
The one issue the former wife did win required no transcript at all — the defect was visible on the face of the order itself. That contrast tells the whole story.
Practical Takeaways for Florida Divorce and Post-Judgment Cases
You do not need to memorize case names. A handful of practical lessons come out of Crane that apply to real cases.
1. Read your fee order carefully. Does it state that the other party has a need? Does it state that you have the present ability to pay? Does it explain the basis for the amount? If those findings are missing, the order may be vulnerable — and that is a question worth asking promptly, because appellate deadlines in Florida are short and unforgiving.
2. Your financial affidavit is one of the most consequential documents in your case. Need and ability to pay are decided on financial evidence. An affidavit filed carelessly, or left stale for years while your circumstances changed, can drive an outcome that does not reflect reality. Update it. Be accurate. Take it seriously.
3. Arrange for a court reporter at contested hearings. This is the single most actionable item on this list. The cost is real but modest compared to the value of preserving your ability to appeal. If a hearing could produce an order you might want to challenge, have it transcribed.
4. Compliance is cheaper than contempt. The fee exposure in Crane followed a contempt finding. If you cannot comply with an order — because your income dropped, your circumstances changed, or the order is genuinely unworkable — the answer is to file a motion to modify, not to quietly stop complying. Courts have considerable patience for people who come forward honestly and very little for people who simply ignore orders.
5. High-conflict litigation is expensive for both sides. The Crane file dates to 2017 and was still generating appellate opinions in 2026. Nine years. Nearly $100,000 in one side’s fees alone. Sometimes conflict is unavoidable because the other party makes it so. But where mediation, a collaborative process, or a negotiated resolution is genuinely available, it usually delivers more control and far less cost than a decade in court.
6. Think hard before proceeding without counsel. Self-representation is a right, and for some people it is a financial necessity rather than a choice. But a party representing herself against two law firms faces a steep procedural climb, and the outcome here reflects that. If cost is the obstacle, ask about limited-scope representation, unbundled services, payment arrangements, or a temporary fee award under section 61.16 — that statute exists precisely so that the ability to hire a lawyer does not depend entirely on who earns more.
7. Understand what winning an appeal actually looks like. Crane was reversed and remanded for one specific determination. That is a real win, and it was worth pursuing. It is also not a clean slate. Ask your attorney candidly what the realistic best-case outcome of an appeal is before committing to one.
Talk With a Tampa Divorce Lawyer at The McKinney Law Group
If you are staring at a fee order, a contempt motion, or an enforcement action, the anxiety is real — and it is usually made worse by not knowing where you actually stand. A clear read on your position is often the most valuable thing you can get.
The lesson of Crane v. Crane is not that Florida courts hand out enormous fee awards on a whim. It is that these awards must rest on findings a judge is required to make and put in writing — and that the details of how your case is documented, preserved, and presented can matter as much as the underlying facts.
The McKinney Law Group represents clients throughout Hillsborough County and the greater Tampa Bay area in divorce, alimony, marital asset division, child support, contempt and enforcement proceedings, and post-judgment modification. We can review a fee order you have already received, defend against a fee request, pursue fees on your behalf when the circumstances support it, or help you resolve a high-conflict matter before it consumes another several years of your life.
If you have questions about attorney’s fees in your Florida case, or you simply want a straightforward conversation with a Tampa divorce lawyer about your options, contact The McKinney Law Group today to schedule a confidential consultation. Time limits apply to challenging court orders, so the sooner you get clarity, the more choices remain open to you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Florida judge order me to pay my ex’s attorney’s fees? Yes. Section 61.16 of the Florida Statutes allows a court to order one spouse to pay the other’s fees and costs in divorce, enforcement, and modification proceedings. The purpose is to ensure both parties can obtain competent representation — not to punish. Courts can also shift fees as a sanction for genuine bad-faith litigation conduct, though that requires its own specific findings.
What does “need and ability to pay” actually mean? Need looks at whether the requesting spouse genuinely requires financial help to pay for a lawyer. Ability to pay looks at whether the other spouse can realistically afford the award at the present time. Both are decided on financial evidence — income, assets, debts, and obligations — and a Florida court must state its conclusions on both.
My fee order doesn’t mention need or ability to pay. Is it invalid? It may be defective. Crane, and the Second District’s decision in Goulding v. Goulding, both hold that a fee order lacking those findings is facially deficient and subject to reversal. That does not automatically mean you owe nothing — the usual remedy is a remand for the trial court to make the missing findings. Have a Tampa family law attorney review the order promptly, because appellate deadlines are short.
Does a contempt finding automatically mean I pay the other side’s fees? No. Contempt is relevant, and Florida courts may consider litigation conduct when deciding fee requests. But labeling an award as a contempt sanction does not eliminate the need for supporting findings. In Goulding, the Second District reversed a contempt-based fee award for exactly that reason.
Do I really need a court reporter at my hearing? If there is any realistic chance you would want to appeal the result, yes. Under Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, an appellate court cannot review factual issues without a transcript and will presume the trial judge ruled correctly. Court reporters are generally not provided automatically in Florida family court — you have to arrange one.
Can I ask the court to make my spouse pay my legal fees? Yes, and you can often do so early. Florida courts can award temporary fees while a case is pending, which helps level the playing field when one spouse controls most of the household income or assets. Request it properly and support it with a complete, accurate financial affidavit.
What if I genuinely cannot afford to comply with a court order? File a motion to modify and address it directly. Civil contempt in Florida generally requires the ability to comply, so an honest inability is legally relevant — but it has to be raised with the court rather than assumed. Silently not complying is what turns a manageable problem into a contempt proceeding with a fee award attached.
Is a Miami appellate decision binding on my Tampa case? Not directly. Hillsborough County cases are governed by the Second District Court of Appeal, so Third District decisions are persuasive rather than binding here. But the need-and-ability requirement discussed in Crane is well established across Florida, and the Second District’s own decision in Goulding is binding in Tampa.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.