Mark L. Jones v. Bank of America, N.A., 401 So.3d 334

The case involves an appeal by Mark L. Jones from an amended final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to Bank of America following a foreclosure.
Earlier, the District Court affirmed a foreclosure in favor of Bank of America, including entitlement to reasonable appellate attorney’s fees.
On remand, Bank of America moved to amend the judgment to include appellate and additional trial court attorney’s fees, submitting affidavits in support.
A hearing was held but Jones did not request an evidentiary hearing, nor is there a transcript or reconstruction of the hearing.
The amended judgment did not include specific findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe regarding the amount and reasonableness of fees.
Jones did not move for rehearing to preserve arguments about deficiencies in the court’s findings for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on fees	Jones argued the court erred by not holding such hearing	Bank: No request for hearing or objection was made	Not preserved for appeal
Failure to make required Rowe findings	Judgment invalid because Rowe findings were absent	Findings not preserved—no rehearing was sought	Not preserved for appeal
Applicability of revised Rule 1.530(a)	Sought review despite new procedural rule	Rule requires rehearing motion to preserve issue	Court held new rule controls, bars appeal

Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (requires trial courts to make express findings on reasonable hourly rate, hours expended, and adjustment factors in attorney’s fee awards)
Guardianship of Halpert v. Rosenbloom, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (orders omitting Rowe findings are fundamentally erroneous on their face)
Delmonico v. Crespo, 127 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same as Rosenbloom, regarding facial error in omission of Rowe factors)