month without interest. Finally, as to attorney’s fees, the husband was ordered to pay the wife’s attorney $500 per month until he had paid the full $38,000 that the court found was owed. No interest was ordered on the fee obligation. ATTORNEY’S FEES The only evidence with regard to the wife’s attorney’s fees was the wife’s testimony that she lacked the ability to pay her own fees, which she placed at “about $38,000.” The trial court found that the wife’s attorney’s fees of $38,000 were reasonable and that the wife had a need for fees and the Husband had the ability to pay the fees. The court made no findings as to the number of hours reasonably expended or an hourly rate. The court’s failure to make those findings was error. See Abernethy v. Fishkin, 638 So.2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>), disagreed with on other grounds, Kelson v.
holding that with regard to preliminary injunction a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to make specific findings regarding the various factors it is required to consider holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids holding that the lower courts findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under ars  25403 holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that reversal is required where a trial court fails to make specific findings as to the reasonable number of hours expended and the reasonable hourly rate as mandated by florida patients compensation fund v rowe 472 so2d 1145 115051 fla1985