DIANA MARTINEZ
v.
MARC MARTINEZ

Fla. 5th DCA | 2024-07-12
No. 2022-2413
Wallis, J., Boatwright, J., MacIver, J., Sprysenski, J.
2024 FL 8453 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2024)

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.

Holding

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relocation and awarding equal timesharing, but erred in calculating support obligations based on inaccurate income information and in failing to properly account for premarital retirement funds and post-separation expenses in equitable distribution.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court's denial of a parent's request to relocate with minor children and determination of equal timesharing are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affir…

[2] When a party fails to present competent evidence of attorney's fees at the fee hearing, remand for another opportunity to prove fees after reversal is not permitted.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“This Court has consistently held that a party must have presented some competent evidence of fees at the fee hearing in order to justify remand for another opportunity to prove fees after reversal.”

Explaining why appellee cannot argue for attorney's fees on remand after failing to prove reasonableness at trial.
Facts & Procedural History

Diana Martinez appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Marc Martinez, challenging the denial of her request to relocate to Maine with the…

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.

Topics
Alimony Calculation Child Support Award Alimony Award Child Support Calculation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alimony Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Maciver

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2022-2413 LT Case No. 2021-DR-000225 _____________________________ DIANA MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. MARC MARTINEZ, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County. Christopher M. Sprysenski, Judge. Rachael Fuller, of The Family Law Firm, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant. Paul D. Shafranski, of Artemis Family Law Group, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee. July 12, 2024

WALLIS, J.

Diana Martinez (“Appellant”) appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Marc Martinez (“Appellee”). We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request to relocate to Maine with the parties’ minor children and its determination of equal timesharing as we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s consideration of the statutory factors on those issues and

Footnotes
2 competent, substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings. We also affirm the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ marital interest in a Maine lake cottage, based on competent, substantial evidence of valuation presented by Appellee without objection. Based on Appellee’s concessions of error, we reverse the trial court’s calculations of alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees due to Appellee providing inaccurate information regarding his monthly gross income of $4,893. On remand, the trial court is instructed to determine the correct amount of Appellee’s monthly income, based on his paystubs in evidence, and then reconsider the alimony and child support awards using the correct amount of Appellee’s monthly income. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2022). Because Appellee failed to prove the reasonableness of attorney’s fees incurred, he is not permitted to argue for fees on remand. See Schreiber v. Schreiber, 331 So. 3d 874, 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“This Court has consistently held that a party must have presented some competent evidence of fees at the fee hearing in order to justify remand for another opportunity to prove fees after reversal.”). We also note Appellee’s concessions that the trial court did not use the stipulated values of Appellant’s Fidelity and Prudential 401(k) accounts which deducted her nonmarital portions of $18,000 and $5,481, respectively, for purposes of distribution. Furthermore, the trial court failed to credit Appellant 50% of the money she spent on the mortgage and HOA fees for the marital home since separation for a total of $8,850.32. Finally, Appellant claims she is entitled to additional credits of $5,600 for a postseparation bathroom repair and $1,300.50 for children’s medical expenses. Appellee agreed to these amounts in the trial court and fails to address them on appeal. We therefore reverse the equitable distribution and remand for recalculation taking into account Appellant’s premarital amounts of $18,000 and $5,481 in the 401(k) accounts and a total of $15,750.82 representing Appellee’s share of expenses owed since the parties’ separation. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions. BOATWRIGHT and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
3 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw