Court Watch
Fifth DCA: Income Deduction Orders Cannot Collect Attorney's Fees Unless the Fees Are Support-Related (Torres-Melendez v. Melendez-Andrade, May 2026)
In Torres-Melendez v. Melendez-Andrade, No. 5D2024-2457, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1047 (Fla. 5th DCA May 22, 2026), the former wife appealed post-judgment orders that awarded trial and appellate attorney's fees to the former husband, held her in contempt, limited her discovery, and issued two income deduction orders to secure payment of the fee awards. This was the parties' second appeal; the first, from the final and amended final judgments, was affirmed without opinion. Torres-Melendez v. Melendez-Andrade, 358 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
The Fifth District affirmed every issue except the IDOs. Reviewing the statute de novo, the court held that section 61.1301(1)(a), which ties IDOs to orders "establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support," precludes using an IDO solely to collect attorney's fees, aligning with Baime v. Baime, 912 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Spalding v. Spalding, 813 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Nash v. Nash, 688 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
The court then recognized the limit of that rule. Because section 61.1301(1)(b)1. directs deduction of "the amount required by the court to meet the obligor's support obligation including any attorney's fees or costs owed," fees incurred to establish or enforce alimony or child support may be collected by IDO. Following Diaz v. Diaz, 66 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), the court reversed the IDOs and remanded with instructions to vacate them, determine what portion of the fees related to establishing or enforcing support, and issue IDOs for that portion only. In a footnote, the court reiterated that an IDO also cannot be used to carry out equitable distribution. Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Lambert, J., wrote for the panel; Makar and MacIver, JJ., concurred. The trial judge was Jigisa Dookhoo.
Practice note: Torres-Melendez brings the Fifth District in line with the Third and Fourth on IDO scope. If you are seeking fees and want IDO collection, build the record for allocation from the start: segregate time entries and billing by issue so the court can identify support-related fees without a second evidentiary fight on remand. If you represent the obligor, check any proposed IDO against the underlying fee order. A blanket IDO covering all fees is reversible to the extent it reaches non-support work such as equitable distribution, contempt unrelated to support, or general litigation.
Sources: Full opinion, FindLaw (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/43923.html) · Family Law Case Updates, May 2026, Eddie Stephens (https://eddiestephens.com/blog/family-law-case-updates-may-2026/) · Florida Appeals Court Decisions, Week of May 18–22, 2026, JD Supra (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/florida-appeals-court-decisions-week-of-3305041/)
Related Reading
More from Court Watch
Court Watch: Fourth DCA Reverses a 34-Year Equalization Payment Plan
The Fourth District reversed a $300 per month equalization plan that would have run nearly 34 years. What Johnson v. Johnson means for installment awards under section 61.075.
Court WatchCourt Watch: No Lump-Sum Child Support, But an Undifferentiated High-Income Award Survives in Sangha v. Riedel
The Fourth District barred a lump-sum child support award but affirmed an undifferentiated temporary award combining alimony and child support in a $1M-income case with asset-shielding facts.