After 12 years of marriage and a 13-day divorce trial, a Florida man was ordered to pay his former wife $50,000 in attorney’s fees after a judge found that he had withheld important financial records about rental properties. A state appeals court upheld the decision that he should pay fees as a sanction for his conduct, but ruled that the trial judge had not explained how the $50,000 figure was calculated.In a ruling issued on October 23, 2026, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decisions on the division of marital property and the former wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. However, it reversed the amount of the award and sent the case back to the lower court to provide findings that justify the sum.The case involved Luis Garcia and Ruth Garcia, who were married for 12 years before Ruth petitioned for divorce. Luis also filed a counter-petition seeking to end the marriage. Their divorce proceedings included a 13-day trial, after which the circuit court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage. According to Law Justia, Luis challenged parts of the distribution of marital property and the $50,000 award to Ruth. The appeal focused in part on his failure to disclose information about real estate holdings and rental income relevant to dividing their assets.
Rental records disclosed only during the trial
The dispute over attorney’s fees centred on financial information that Ruth had tried to obtain during the divorce proceedings. According to the ruling, the trial court found that Luis had provided some discovery documents late or failed to provide them despite considerable litigation and efforts to compel disclosure. Among the missing records was a notebook containing information about rental income and expenses from the couple’s substantial real estate holdings.The trial judge said the notebook was not disclosed until the middle of the trial, even though Ruth had spent considerable time and effort trying to obtain the information. The judge described the withholding of the notebook as “egregious” and found that Luis had acted in bad faith.The appeals court agreed that the record supported those findings. It said Luis’s failure to disclose pertinent information about multiple properties and rental income subject to equitable distribution was sufficiently serious to qualify as bad-faith conduct.The court also noted that the nondisclosure continued until the middle of the trial. It concluded that making Luis pay attorney’s fees caused by that conduct was an appropriate sanction.
Why the appeals court questioned the $50,000 award
The court also noted that the nondisclosure continued until the middle of the trial.
Although the appeals court upheld Ruth’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, it found a problem with the way the trial judge arrived at the amount. The trial court had determined that Ruth did not have a financial need for an attorney’s-fee award. However, it still ordered Luis to pay because of his conduct during the litigation.Under Florida law, courts generally consider the requesting spouse’s financial need and the other spouse’s ability to pay when deciding whether to award attorney’s fees in divorce proceedings. But the appeals court explained that this does not prevent a judge from ordering one spouse to pay fees as a sanction for bad-faith conduct.The problem was not the decision to impose a sanction, but the absence of an explanation for the $50,000 figure. The appellate opinion said the trial judge had provided no findings showing how the amount was calculated. It referred to the need for specific findings about the attorney’s hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably spent on the case and the portion of the wife’s legal expenses caused by the husband’s misconduct. Without those details, the appeals court could not uphold the amount as calculated, even though it agreed that the conduct warranted a fee award.
What happens next?
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decisions on equitable distribution and Ruth’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. It reversed only the amount of the award and remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court must now make findings supporting whatever amount of attorney’s fees it considers appropriate. The ruling does not mean Luis has been cleared of the bad-faith finding, nor does it mean the $50,000 award has been permanently eliminated. Instead, the trial court must explain the basis for the amount it orders him to pay.
