FL SB 644 Retroactive Attorney Fee Bill Died (2026)

The Short Answer

Florida CS/CS/SB 644 would have amended F.S. 61.16 to let divorce and family courts award attorney fees, suit money, and costs retroactively as well as prospectively, resolving a District Court of Appeal split created by a 2024 First DCA decision. It did not pass. The Senate bill died in the Rules Committee on March 13, 2026, so the statute is unchanged.

The News Hook

If you read a headline suggesting Florida divorce courts can now award attorney fees retroactively, read it carefully. The bill that would have done that, CS/CS/SB 644, titled Attorney Fees, Suit Money, and Costs, died before reaching a floor vote.

The bill was filed on November 21, 2025, and moved cleanly through its early committees. It passed the Judiciary Committee 11 to 0 and the Appropriations Committee 7 to 0. Then it stalled. On March 13, 2026, the Florida Senate recorded its final action: died in Rules. A bill that dies in committee never reaches the governor and never becomes law.

That means the substance of SB 644 is important to understand not because it changed Florida law, but because it did not. The underlying legal problem it tried to fix is still there.

Legal Implications

SB 644 targeted a real conflict in Florida appellate law. Under F.S. 61.16, a court in a dissolution of marriage or related family law proceeding may order one spouse to pay the other spouse's attorney fees, suit money, and costs. The statute exists so that a financial imbalance between spouses does not decide who gets competent legal representation. The court looks at one party's need and the other party's ability to pay.

For years, Florida courts across the state also awarded fees retroactively where equity required it, meaning fees for legal work already performed. In 2024, the First District Court of Appeal broke from that approach. It read F.S. 61.16 as authorizing only prospective fee awards, reasoning that the statute's language about immediate financial assistance and access to legal representation points toward future expenses, not past ones. Other District Courts of Appeal had allowed retroactive awards. That disagreement is what lawyers call a DCA split, and it creates uncertainty about the law depending on which appellate district your county sits in.

SB 644 would have codified an answer: fees, suit money, and costs, whether temporary or final, could be awarded retroactively and prospectively as equity requires. It also went further. The bill would have written the long-standing Rosen and Moakley fee factors into the statute, letting a court impose, limit, or deny fee awards; would have expressly allowed courts to consider a party's rejection of a good-faith settlement offer; and would have barred a fee award to a noncompliant party who, without justification, refused to follow a court order in an enforcement action.

Because the bill died, none of these changes took effect. F.S. 61.16 reads today as it did in 2024 and 2025, and the First DCA's prospective-only interpretation remains part of the split.

Florida-Specific Analysis

Florida family law has seen a run of high-profile reform bills, and it is easy to assume any well-publicized bill became law. It often does not. The 2023 alimony overhaul, SB 1416, did pass and reshaped alimony statewide. Many bills since have not. SB 644 belongs to the second group.

For Florida spouses, the practical reality is that attorney-fee awards under F.S. 61.16 still turn on the same core test the courts have always applied: the requesting party's need and the other party's ability to pay, guided by the Rosen and Moakley factors as developed through case law rather than by the statutory codification SB 644 proposed. Whether a retroactive fee award is available can still depend on which appellate district governs your case, which is precisely the uncertainty the bill tried to eliminate.

This matters most in contested cases, where fee disputes are common and the stakes are high. In an uncontested divorce, fee-shifting under F.S. 61.16 is usually a non-issue. When both spouses agree on all terms and each covers their own costs, there is typically no fee fight for a court to resolve. That is one of the underappreciated advantages of resolving a divorce by agreement rather than litigation: you sidestep the very battles that bills like SB 644 are written to referee.

Practical Takeaways

Here is what Florida residents should keep in mind.

First, do not rely on SB 644. It is not law. If you are budgeting for a contested case or evaluating a fee claim, the statute and the existing case law control, not the bill's proposed language.

Second, the DCA split on retroactive fees is real and unresolved. If your case involves a fee claim for work already done, the availability of a retroactive award may depend on your appellate district. This is a question for a Florida family law attorney familiar with your circuit, not a question you should try to resolve from a headline.

Third, understand what actually reduces cost. Fee-shifting statutes are about who pays for litigation. The most reliable way to control legal cost is to reduce the litigation itself. An uncontested divorce, where both spouses sign a marital settlement agreement, keeps the process out of the fee-dispute arena entirely.

For context on how Florida attorney-fee legislation has moved this session, see our companion coverage: FL SB 644 Attorney-Fee Reform Dies in Committee (2026) and FL Appeals Split on Alimony: Sheff & Gaul Rulings (2026). For a broader look at how failed bills get misreported, see No, Florida HB 943 Isn't an Alimony Formula Bill (2026).

If your situation is uncontested and you want to avoid the litigation costs these bills address, our firm handles Florida uncontested divorces for a $750 flat attorney fee (court filing costs are separate). Learn how the process works in How to File Uncontested Divorce in Tampa FL: $750 (2026) and Convert a Contested Divorce to Uncontested in Florida.

The Bottom Line

CS/CS/SB 644 was a serious, well-drafted attempt to fix a genuine gap in Florida family law by confirming that courts may award attorney fees retroactively and prospectively under F.S. 61.16 and F.S. 742.045. It cleared two committees unanimously and then died in Rules on March 13, 2026. The First DCA's prospective-only holding and the resulting appellate split remain in place. Watch for a similar bill in a future session, but treat today's law as unchanged.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided by Antonio G. Jimenez, Esq., Florida Bar No. 21022, for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Legislative status and case law change; verify the current status of any bill and consult a licensed Florida attorney about your specific circumstances before making decisions.