FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-3476

_____________________________

TONY LAVON WAITES,

Appellant,

v.

FRANK MIDDLETON, SR., and

ROSA M. MIDDLETON,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge.

September 28, 2022

PER CURIAM.

Tony Lavon Waites appeals an order granting the Middletons’ 

motion for attorneys’ fees. Waites argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion by failing to follow Florida Patient’s 

Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and 

Grapski v. City of Alachua, 134 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). 

Waites contends that Rowe requires the trial court to make specific 

findings regarding a reasonable amount of hours worked to award 

fees and that the trial court failed to do so here. Waites interprets 

Grapski to mean that fees cannot be awarded without current, 

specific, and detailed evidence of the time spent working on the 

case. Neither of Waites’ arguments have merit. 
2

Rowe explains that an attorney is obligated to “keep[] accurate 

and current records of time spent on a case, particularly when 

someone other than the client may pay the fee.” Rowe, 472 So. 2d 

at 1150. “To accurately assess the labor involved, the attorney fee 

applicant should present records detailing the amount of work 

performed.” Id. “Inadequate documentation may result in a 

reduction of the number of hours claimed, as will a claim for hours 

that the court finds to be excessive or unnecessary.” Id. Attorneys’ 

fees are not prohibited where records are inadequate. Rowe also 

includes factors that should be considered in determining 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, but courts are not required to reduce 

these considerations into written findings. See Murphy v. Murphy, 

621 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that trial courts 

are not obligated to “make a written finding memorializing the 

judge’s consideration” of every fact). 

In Grapski, this Court affirmed an award of fees based on 

credible expert witness testimony despite insufficient records 

detailing the work performed. The expert witness thoroughly 

reviewed the record and detailed the amount of hours reasonably 

incurred. “When there is competent substantial evidence which 

supports the trial court’s order under the totality of the 

circumstances, there is no abuse of discretion.” Id. at 989. 

Here, although the Middletons’ counsel did not keep accurate 

and current records of the time spent on legal work for the 

Middletons, he did present competent substantial evidence to show 

that at least fifty hours of work were performed over a ten-year 

period. The Middletons’ counsel produced the court docket and 

internal files, showing the number of filings drafted. He also 

submitted his own affidavit explaining the time spent on the case 

and the affidavit of an expert witness. The expert witness also 

testified at the fees hearing that fifty hours was a reasonable and 

conservative estimate of the time spent on the case. The trial court 

did not abuse its discretion by relying on this competent 

substantial evidence in its fee award. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, OSTERHAUS, and LONG, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael R. Rollo of Michael R. Rollo, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Artice L. McGraw of Artice L. McGraw, P.A., Pensacola, for 

Appellees.