← Case library
5th DCAOctober 23, 2026Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part⭐ Notable

Garcia v. Garcia

Case No. 5D2024-2992

After a thirteen-day dissolution trial, the trial court found the wife had no need for fees but awarded her $50,000 based on the husband's bad-faith litigation conduct dash concealing a notebook of rental income/expense records until mid-trial despite extensive discovery litigation. The Fifth DCA affirmed equitable distribution and the wife's entitlement to a bad-faith fee award under Rosen v. Rosen, but reversed the $50,000 amount because the trial judge made no findings supporting the calculation.

Key facts

  • Husband and wife disputed dissolution of marriage after thirteen-day trial in which trial court found wife had no financial need for attorney's fees.
  • Wife sought attorney's fees based on husband's bad-faith conduct in concealing notebook containing rental income and expense records until mid-trial despite extensive discovery litigation and motions to compel.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This decision gives family and civil practitioners a clean, citable statement that Rosen bad-faith fees are available notwithstanding a finding of no need dash useful both offensively against discovery stonewalling and… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.