DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBRA A. JOOSTE,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL W. JOOSTE,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2736

[May 8, 2019]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 502017DR009547XXXNB.

Brittani S. Gross, Doreen Inkeles and Charles D. Jamieson of The Law 

Firm of Charles D. Jamieson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Cash A. Eaton of Sasser, Cestero & Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

KUNTZ, J.

The Wife appeals a temporary relief order that awarded her temporary 

alimony and denied her request for temporary attorney’s fees, suit money, 

and professional fees. The temporary relief order granted the Husband 

unsupervised timesharing with minor children. Finally, the court found 

the Wife had the need to receive temporary child support and that the 

Husband had the ability to pay for it, but it made no separate or express 

provision relating to child support.

We reverse the court’s order for failing to make findings on child 

support. We also reverse the court’s order denying the Wife temporary 

attorney’s fees, suit money, and professional fees, for failing to consider 

the required factors. We otherwise affirm without discussion.
2

i. The Court Failed to Award Child Support

The Wife argues the court erred by failing to make an express award of 

child support after finding that she established a need. The Husband 

partially concedes error but argues the court intended the alimony 

awarded in the temporary relief order to include both temporary alimony 

and child support.

The Husband acknowledges the court needed to identify the amount of 

the support award that was alimony and the amount that was child 

support. See Van Maerssen v. Gerdts, 213 So. 3d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2017) (holding that undifferentiated spousal and child support is an abuse 

of discretion (citing Greenhouse v. Greenhouse, 913 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2005); Blum v. Blum, 769 So. 2d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000))).

He also concedes that the court erred in failing to identify the parties’ 

respective incomes in its temporary relief order. See Lopez v. Regalado, 

257 So. 3d 550, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (recognizing that in awarding child 

support, the trial court must make findings on the parties’ income

(citations omitted)).

Based on the Husband’s proper confession of error, we reverse the 

temporary alimony order.

ii. The Temporary Fee Award Failed to Identify Factors

The court denied the Wife temporary attorney’s fees and professional 

fees. The Wife argues the court failed to consider all factors required when 

awarding temporary attorney’s fees and costs.

To ensure that both parties have the ability to obtain competent legal 

counsel, a court is permitted to award reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs. Nichols v. Nichols, 519 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 1988) (citations 

omitted); § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). “[T]he appropriate inquiry and 

standard to be applied is the same whether the fees requested are 

temporary or final.” Nichols, 519 So. 2d at 622 (citations omitted). But 

see Kasm v. Kasm, 933 So. 2d 48, 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“It seems to me 

that the process of setting a temporary award of attorneys’ fees in a divorce 

proceeding should not be subjected to the same rigors as a final award.” 

(Altenbernd, J., concurring) (citations omitted)).

That inquiry “is whether one spouse has a need for suit money and the 

other has the ability to pay” and also requires the court to “determine the 

reasonableness of any attorney’s fees and costs prior to ordering a party 
3

to pay them.” Duncan v. Duncan, 642 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1994) (citations omitted). The Florida Supreme Court provided other 

factors to consider,

such as the scope and history of the litigation; the duration of 

the litigation; the merits of the respective positions; whether 

the litigation is brought or maintained primarily to harass (or 

whether a defense is raised mainly to frustrate or stall); and 

the existence and course of prior or pending litigation. 

Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1997).

Here, the court did not make findings on the complexity of the case, the 

Wife’s need for temporary fees, the Husband’s ability to pay temporary 

fees, or the reasonableness of the fees sought. Instead, it compared the 

amount the Wife paid for professional services to the amount the Husband 

paid. Because the Wife paid twice the amount as the Husband, the court 

denied her temporary fees. 

The court therefore erred when it considered no factors other than the 

amount paid by each party. As a result, we reverse the order denying the 

Wife temporary fees, suit money, and professional fees.

iii. Conclusion

Based on the Husband’s confession of error, we reverse the court’s 

order relating to child support. We also reverse the court’s order denying 

the Wife temporary fees, suit money, and professional fees. The case is 

remanded for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded. 

GERBER, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.