Opinion
Case No. 5D20-981
06-25-2021
Richard C. MOORE, Appellant, v. Sally R. MOORE, Appellee.
Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. James Ippoliti and Scott Widerman, of Widerman Malek, P.L., Melbourne, for Appellee.
Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
James Ippoliti and Scott Widerman, of Widerman Malek, P.L., Melbourne, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this post-dissolution proceeding, Richard C. Moore ("Former Husband") appeals an order granting in part Sally R. Moore's ("Former Wife") Motions for Contempt and Enforcement of the 2003 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage that incorporated the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA"), and a Supplemental Final Judgment granting Former Husband's request to terminate his alimony obligations under the MSA. Former Husband argues, inter alia , that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to provide him with a credit for $11,000 in payments made as a reimbursement to Former Wife for her share in a retirement account (the "VIP account"), and (2) rejected his laches defense to Former Wife's claim for alimony arrearages. We reverse as to the $11,000 credit, but otherwise affirm.
Former Wife concedes that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Former Husband already reimbursed Former Wife $11,000 toward the VIP account. See, e.g. , Ponce v. Ponce , 997 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Nevertheless, Former Wife argues that Former Husband waived this credit at trial. We have reviewed the transcript and disagree that any credit for reimbursement of the VIP account was waived. We therefore reverse and remand on this ground.
We otherwise affirm, and specifically reject Former Husband's argument that Former Wife's claims are barred by laches because the order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Flaherty v. Flaherty , 128 So. 3d 920, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("The trial court's application of the doctrine of laches ‘is reviewed for abuse of discretion, provided that there is competent, substantial evidence for each element of the doctrine.’ " (quoting Dep't of Rev. ex rel. Thorman v. Holley , 86 So. 3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) )); Ticktin v. Kearin , 807 So. 2d 659, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("Laches is an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party.").
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur.