Case Name: Walter J. KASM, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia KASM, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-05-19
Citations: 933 So. 2d 48
Docket Number: No. 2D05-3889
Parties: Walter J. KASM, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia KASM, Appellee.
Judges: KELLY, J„ Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 48–51

Head Matter:
Walter J. KASM, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia KASM, Appellee.
No. 2D05-3889.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 19, 2006.
Denise E. Elder of Gerald R. Sage, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Ellen E. Ware and Jeanie E. Hanna of Ellen E. Ware, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
SALCINES, Judge.
Walter J. Kasm, Jr. (the Husband), appeals from a nonfinal order granting temporary attorney's fees to Patricia Kasm (the Wife). We affirm, without discussion, the portion of the order which concluded that the Wife is entitled to temporary fees. However, the trial court made no findings whatsoever concerning the reasonableness of the temporary fees awarded, and this court cannot determine from the record before us how the trial court arrived at its determination of the amount awarded. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the order awarding $10,000 in temporary fees and remand to the trial court for a determination of the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.
In this appeal, the Husband argues that the trial court was required to determine whether the proposed fees were reasonable but that it failed to do so. Although the Wife's counsel briefly alluded to the difficulty experienced in litigating the case up to the date of the temporary fee hearing, counsel did not otherwise address a specific fee amount which she considered reasonable and did not offer any evidence concerning a reasonable fee amount. The Wife's attorney presented an affidavit which set forth amounts expended through the date of the affidavit as well as an estimate of additional hours to be expended and expenses to be incurred, but the affidavit itself could be read to support an award ranging from far less to far more than the amount actually awarded. Indeed, it is not entirely clear which fees and expenses, expended or projected, were appropriate in this case. The trial court awarded $10,000 without explanation.
"The trial court must 'not only determine that one spouse has a need for suit money and the other has the ability to pay, but also that the temporary attorney's fees and costs awarded are reasonable.' " Safford v. Safford, 656 So.2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Duncan v. Duncan, 642 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). In the present case, the trial court did not explain how it determined that $10,000 was a reasonable fee, and we cannot determine how it reached that conclusion based on the record before this court. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order awarding a specific amount of temporary fees and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY, J" Concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., Concurs with opinion.
. We confess some discomfort in reversing that portion of the order because the amount awarded was not unusually excessive. Furthermore, the trial court enjoys "broad" discretion in making temporary fee determinations which, by their very nature, can be adjusted at a later date by an additional interim award or, in certain circumstances, a credit. See Nault v. Nault, 883 So.2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Walker v. Walker, 827 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Wrona v. Wrona, 592 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). Nonetheless, in this case we are compelled to reach this result. See Safford v. Safford, 656 So.2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).