Although Only Applicable To Certain Florida Counties, It Is More In Line With California And Federal Approaches.
Although we usually concentrate on California cases, the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal (governing over around 10 Central Florida counties) in Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 431 So.3d 1055 (Fla. App., 6th Dist. 2026) rejected a six-decades rule requiring use of expert testimony and holding an evidentiary hearing as a prerequisite for an attorney’s fees award. It found the old approach “wrong,” holding that a lower court can rely on time entries, invoices, attorneys’ testimony, and its own knowledge/experience without the fee claimant having to produce an expert witness or hold an evidentiary hearing—finding that this was consistent with the federal approach and that no Florida statute/procedural rule ever imposed these so-called requirements. However, the appellate court did not dispense with the need to submit adequate billing records showing the work actually performed, but it did rule that an expert witness was not a prerequisite. Of note, this opinion does not apply to other Florida DCAs, which may adhere to the six-decades protocol.
BLOG OBSERVATION—This Florida decision aligns somewhat closely with California practice. However, in the right case (especially where a substantial fee award is at issue), a fee claimant should consider retaining a fee expert to support a large request, because the opposition may have a fee expert and the lack of a supporting fee expert may spell future trouble in the fee proceeding. For a good discussion on why a fee expert will be instructive in California cases, see Donahue v. Donahue, 182 Cal.App.4th 259 (2010).