EDUARDO VERDASCO
v.
DYNIRIE DE LA CARIDAD VAZQUEZ

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-03-05
No. 2024-0019
49 Fla. L. Weekly D2257 2025 FL 1918 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this family law appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's final judgment dissolving a marriage, rejecting the husband's challenges to the award of parental decision-making authority to the wife, the equitable distribution of property, and the attorney's fees award.


Holding

The court affirmed all three aspects of the trial court's judgment. The Wife produced competent substantial evidence supporting parental decision-making authority and the Husband failed to rebut it. The Husband failed to properly raise the nonmarital property issue and produce evidence supporting his contention. The trial court properly considered each party's need and ability to pay when awarding attorney's fees.


Headnotes

[1] An appellate court reviews a trial court's decisions regarding parental responsibility, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion, absent leg…

[2] A party seeking ultimate decision-making authority regarding a minor child's education and healthcare must present competent substantial evidence to support the request.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The Wife produced competent substantial evidence via her testimony to support her request for ultimate decision-making authority concerning the minor child's education and healthcare, and the Husband failed to rebut this evidence.”

Establishes that the Wife met her burden of proof and the Husband failed to present controverting evidence on the parental decision-making issue.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Eduardo Verdasco (Husband) and Dynirie De La Caridad Vazquez (Wife) were parties to a marriage dissolution proceeding involving a minor child. The tri…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0019 Lower Tribunal No. 21-23159 ________________

Eduardo Verdasco, Appellant,

vs.

Dynirie De La Caridad Vazquez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, George A. Sarduy, Judge.

The Hachar Law Group, and Michael McCormick, Jr., and Kendrick Almaguer, for appellant.

Orshan, Spann & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

2

Eduardo Verdasco (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s final judgment dissolving his marriage to Dynirie De La Caridad Vazquez (“Wife”). He contends the trial court erred in (1) awarding the Wife ultimate decisionmaking authority regarding the minor child’s education and healthcare; (2) awarding the Wife 50% of property that was allegedly nonmarital; and (3) awarding the Wife all her attorneys’ fees and costs. Absent legal error, each of these issues is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Quiceno v. Bedier, 387 So. 3d 365, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (parental responsibility); Rojas v. Otero, 49 Fla.

L. Weekly D2257, *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 13, 2024) (equitable distribution); Iannuzzelli v. Lovett, 981 So. 2d 557, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (attorney’s fees). The Wife produced competent substantial evidence via her testimony to support her request for ultimate decision-making authority concerning the minor child’s education and healthcare, and the Husband failed to rebut this evidence. The Husband also failed to properly raise the issue of the status as allegedly nonmarital property and failed to produce any evidence to support his contention.

Finally, the trial court properly considered each party’s need and ability to pay prior to awarding the Wife her attorneys’ fees and costs. Finding no legal error or abuse of discretion, we affirm.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw