MIRELLA AGUILERA
v.
FRANCISCO AGUSTIN
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.
In this family law dissolution case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the trial court's final dissolution order but reversed the valuation of a marital asset (a Tahoe motor vehicle), finding that the trial court improperly relied on a financial affidavit rather than the parties' agreed-upon value established through testimony.
The trial court's valuation of the Tahoe at $22,000 was erroneous because it relied on the financial affidavit rather than the parties' agreed-upon value of $26,000 established through testimony. A financial affidavit is not competent substantial evidence when a party testifies that it is inaccurate. Most of the appellant's other arguments were either unpersuasive or unpreserved due to failure to file a required motion for rehearing.
[1] A motion for rehearing is required to challenge a trial court's failure to make statutorily required findings.
[2] A motion for rehearing is not required to challenge whether a trial court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence.
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“A financial affidavit is not competent, substantial evidence of a party's income if the party testifies that the financial affidavit is not accurate.”
Establishes the legal standard that financial affidavits cannot override contrary testimony regarding their accuracy
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMirella Aguilera and Francisco Agustin were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. During trial, Francisco testified on redirect examination…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
FORST, J.
Appellant Mirella Aguilera (“Former Wife”) timely appeals the trial court’s final dissolution order, arguing that the trial court either failed to consider her arguments or failed to have competent substantial evidence to support its findings as to appellee Francisco Agustin’s (“Former Husband”) income and retroactive child support obligations, valuation of marital assets, and timesharing. With one exception, we reject these arguments, finding them unpersuasive or unpreserved. Indeed, many of Former Wife’s arguments challenge the trial court’s failure to make statutorily required findings, but Former Wife failed to file a motion for rehearing as required by Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530(a).
However, because rule 12.530(a) does not require a motion for rehearing to challenge whether the trial court’s order was supported by competent substantial evidence, we reverse on the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ Tahoe (motor vehicle). Former Husband testified on redirect examination by his attorney that the Tahoe had an agreed-upon value of $26,000. Instead of valuing the Tahoe at $26,000, the trial court instead valued the Tahoe at $22,000, based on Former Husband’s initial financial affidavit. This was erroneous. See Pukin v. Pukin, 365 So. 3d 493, 496
(Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“A financial affidavit is not competent, substantial evidence of a party’s income if the party testifies that the financial affidavit is not accurate.” (quoting Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1210 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023))). Therefore, although we generally reject Former Wife’s appellate arguments, we reverse with respect to the valuation of the Tahoe’s valuation and remand for the trial court to adjust its final dissolution judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mirella Aguilera v. Agustin, 365 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…orney that the Tahoe had an agreed-upon value of $26,000. Instead of valuing the Tahoe at $26,000, the trial court instead valued the Tahoe at $22,000, based on Former Husband’s initial financial affidavit. This was erroneous. See Pukin v. Pukin, 365 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“A financial affidavit is not competent, substantial evidence of a party’s income if the party testifies that the financial affidavit is not accurate.” (quoting Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1210 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023))).…
-
Ospina-Shone v. Shone (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…e Wife failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not filing a motion for rehearing. However, “a motion for rehearing to challenge whether the trial court’s order was supported by competent substantial evidence” is unnecessary. Aguilera v. Agustin, 374 So. 3d 4, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).…
-
Hunter v. Hunter (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Giegold v. Giegold, 363 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
- Mirella Aguilera v. Agustin, 365 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)