BRUNO DIPASQUALE
v.
LISETTE DIPASQUALE
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.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions regarding marriage dissolution and denial of a motion to modify a marital settlement agreement. However, it allowed the appellant to raise his arguments in a future modification petition.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions. However, it ruled that the appellant could raise his arguments in a subsequent petition for modification.
[1] In cases involving a marital settlement agreement, the effective date of the agreement establishes the date to which a trial court should look in determining whether a su…
[2] The effective date of a marital settlement agreement establishes the pertinent date for determining whether a substantial change in circumstances contemplated by the part…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We affirm without prejudice to Mr. DiPasquale asserting the arguments he has raised in this appeal in a subsequent petition for modification.”
This quote explains the court's decision to affirm but allow the appellant to pursue his arguments in a different procedural context.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Bruno DiPasquale, appealed from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Lisette DiPasquale and from an order denying his motion t…
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 Return Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BRUNO DIPASQUALE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2266 ) 2D17-2267 LISETTE DIPASQUALE, ) ) CONSOLIDATED Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge.
Raymond J. Rafool and David R. Hazouri of Rafool, LLC, Miami, for Appellant.
Cynthia B. Hall of Silveri & Ball, P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Bruno DiPasquale appeals from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Lisette DiPasquale and from the order denying his motion to modify the parties' partial marital settlement agreement (PMSA). We affirm without prejudice to Mr. DiPasquale asserting the arguments he has raised in this appeal in a subsequent petition for modification. Cf. Dogoda v. Dogoda, 233 So. 3d
484, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("In cases involving an MSA, the effective date of the agreement establishes the date to which a trial court should look in determining whether a substantial change in circumstances was contemplated by the parties.").
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.