CARLOS ERNESTO ROJAS
v.
CAROLINA MEJIA LONDONO

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-01-08
No. 3D2024-0455
2025 FL 205 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025) Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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

A petition for annulment must be denied where the record contains sufficient evidence that the parties consummated the marriage and the alleged fraud—marrying solely for immigration benefits—is not established.

Headnotes

[1] A petition for annulment of a valid marriage must be supported by allegation and proof of recognized statutory grounds for annulment, and absent such grounds, the marriag…

Previewing 1 of 1 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

“Where a marriage is validly contracted it should not be dissolved other than by divorce, or by a decree of annulment supported by allegation and proof of recognized grounds for annulment of marriage.”

Quotation from Sack v. Sack, 184 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), establishing the standard that valid marriages require recognized grounds for annulment.
Facts & Procedural History

The husband sought an annulment of his marriage to the wife, claiming the parties never consummated the marriage and that the wife married him solely …

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
Annulment Of Marriage

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Annulment Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed January 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0455 Lower Tribunal No. 22-5096-FC-04

________________

Carlos Ernesto Rojas,

Appellant,

vs.

Carolina Mejia Londono,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge. Ilene F. Tuckfield, P.A. and Ilene F. Tuckfield, for appellant. Sarmiento Law, PLLC and Francesca L. Sarmiento (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J. Carlos Ernesto Rojas (the “Husband”) appeals a final order denying his petition for annulment of marriage against Carolina Mejia Londono (the “Wife”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no error in the trial court’s order, we affirm.

On appeal, the Husband asserts that an annulment is proper because the parties never consummated the marriage and the Wife married him solely for immigration benefits, committing fraud.1 Because the record contains ample evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that the parties consummated the marriage and the Wife did not enter the marriage to commit fraud, we find the trial court properly denied the Husband’s petition for annulment of marriage. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, 346 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2022) (“To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Sack v. Sack, 184 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (“Where a marriage is validly contracted it should not be dissolved other than by divorce, or by a decree of annulment supported by allegation and proof of recognized grounds for annulment of marriage. The record of this case discloses no asserted ground or evidence to justify a decree of annulment in favor of the

Footnotes
1 We affirm the other issues raised without further discussion. husband . . . Here the parties, according to the allegations and proof, entered into a valid marriage contract . . . The evidence does not establish existence of any of the grounds for annulment as outlined above.”). Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Britni Hiatt v. Mathieu (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
  • MC Gill v. MC Gill, 325 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
    …ollowing sentence: "To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court's findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule." In Re: Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530, 346 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2022). Because the amendment was not effective until August 25, 2022, see id. at 1161-62, a motion for rehearing was not required to preserve for review the issue of the lack of findings in the judgment rendered on January 13, 2022. Wit…
  • Rocio Merlihan v. Skinner (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
    …require an appellant to file a motion for rehearing to preserve for appeal the issue of a trial court's failure to include the requisite factual findings in a final judgment. See In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 & Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530, 346 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 2022); In re: Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 & Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530, 373 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 2023); see also Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530(a) (“To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw