Roger R. MAAS, Appellant,
v.
Jane A. MAAS, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Roger R. Maas, Monticello, pro se.
John T. Allen, Jr. of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
SCHEB, Judge.
In Maas v. Maas,
Before signing the final judgment, the trial judge crossed out the section concerning the number of hours expended, hourly rate, etc. and awarded the wife an even $10,000. Thus, the final judgment is facially invalid since it fails to set forth specific findings regarding the amount of fees awarded. See, Shields v. Shields,
We note in passing that during the hearing there was testimony from the ex-wife's attorney that: (1) he has not attempted nor would he attempt to collect any fee from his client; (2) he told his client he would accept whatever fee the court awarded; and (3) he believed the fees were uncollectible. We further note that an invoice, which was admitted into evidence, states that the ex-wife owed her attorney $486.70. There was also a notation on the invoice indicating that "[a]pproximately $33,000 is due in fees which are being charged off as a `loss item' to our firm." Thus, on remand, we direct the trial judge to include in the final judgment a finding concerning the ex-wife's contractual liability to her attorney in order to establish a limit on the amount of fees which the ex-wife may recover. See Winterbotham v. Winterbotham,
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in compliance with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
