Opinion
No. 4D2022-2833
11-01-2023
Mirella AGUILERA, Appellant, v. Francisco AGUSTIN, Appellee.
Charles E. Jarrell of Charles E. Jarrell, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant. Katlin M. Sanders of KMS Legal, Vero Beach, for appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Michael C. Heisey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562020DR000993AXXXHC.
Charles E. Jarrell of Charles E. Jarrell, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.
Katlin M. Sanders of KMS Legal, Vero Beach, for appellee.
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.