MARY ANN JAMES DE HOLGUIN,

v.

CAMILA HOLGUIN GODIN, ET AL.,

GORDO, J. Mary Ann James de Holguin, the decedent’s wife, (the “Wife”) appeals an order dismissing her amended complaint against the decedent’s daughter

Camila Holguin Godin (the “Daughter”), as an individual and representative of the estate of Rodrigo Holguin Lourido (the “Decedent”), and Majaroho LLC, for forum non conveniens. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii).

Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s ruling, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Wife and the Decedent were in a long-term marriage and remained married until his death on December 29, 2019. The Decedent had three children from a prior marriage, including the Daughter. The couple were residents of Colombia who lived on their property in Florida for a few months of the year. During the course of the marriage the Wife and Decedent entered into multiple agreements regarding the dispensation of their property, including a “Memorandum of Understanding” (“MOU”).

The MOU, which is written in Spanish, was signed and executed at the office of Holland & Knight in Bogota, Colombia on October 7, 2019. The MOU deals primarily with the couple’s Colombian assets and unequivocally mandates its terms are governed by Colombian law.

In June 2020, the Daughter commenced a probate proceeding in Miami-Dade. The Daughter’s petition noted there was already ongoing probate proceedings in Colombia. The Wife filed objections to the Florida

proceedings. Five months later, the Wife filed the instant independent creditor action, raising claims against the Daughter and Majaroho relating to the MOU. The Daughter and Majaroho moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens arguing Colombia was the more appropriate forum and the ongoing probate case in Colombia centered on many of the same issues raised by the pleadings filed in this action. The trial court held a full evidentiary hearing and—after applying the factors set forth in Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 94 (Fla. 1996)—granted the motion to dismiss finding that Colombia was the appropriate forum for these claims and dismissal was warranted under forum non conveniens. This appeal followed. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens grounds is “subject to review for abuse of discretion.” Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 94. “[T]he trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.” Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the four-step test to address forum non conveniens challenges. See Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Techs. Corp., 637 F. 2d 775, 784–85 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

This test was later codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(a).¹ FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Here, the trial court properly addressed all four Kinney factors, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the Daughter and Majaroho provided sufficient competent, substantial evidence to show that Colombia was an adequate alternative forum. See Abeid-Saba v.¹ Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 provides: (a) Grounds for Dismissal. An action may be dismissed on the ground that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida when: (1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties; (2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice; (3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and (4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“An alternative forum is adequate if it provides for litigation of the subject matter of the dispute and potentially offers redress for plaintiffs’ injuries.” (quoting King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 562 F. 3d 1374, 1382 (11th Cir. 2009)); GLF Constr. Corp. v. Credinform Int’l, S.A., 225 So. 3d 377, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (finding no abuse of discretion where “review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing, establishes that the trial court conducted a proper, adequate analysis” of the Kinney factors).

Affirmed.