Ahmed Taha v. Noha Hussein Hassan

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 6D2024-1270
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1270 Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-12259-O _____________________________

AHMED TAHA,

Appellant, v.

NOHA HUSSEIN HASSAN,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.

October 3, 2025

TRAVER, C.J.

Ahmed Taha (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s final divorce

judgment. We reverse in part because the trial court disregarded a binding equitable

distribution stipulation Former Husband and Noha Hussein Hassan (“Former Wife”)

reached at trial. 1

1 We affirm the trial court’s determination on alimony because Former Husband’s arguments are either waived, lacking in merit, or constitute harmless error. We dismiss without prejudice Former Husband’s challenge to the trial court’s unliquidated award of attorney’s fees. See Fuentes v. Yuhi Landholdings, LLC, 387 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). After a long-term marriage, the parties had few assets and substantial

liabilities. Former Husband’s student loans for dental school comprised much of

this debt. On the day of trial, the parties stipulated that they would each bear their

own debts and maintain their own assets. The trial court confirmed this stipulation

with each party and accepted it. The parties did not argue over equitable distribution

at trial. But the trial court ordered Former Husband to make an equalizing payment

to Former Wife because he dissipated assets during the parties’ divorce.

We review de novo whether the parties’ stipulation prevented the trial court

from taking this action. See Holcombe v. City of Naples/Johns E. Co., 328 So. 3d

311, 314–15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). We find that it did because “[a] stipulation

properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate

is binding upon the parties and upon the Court.” Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania

Bank, 252 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1971); see also Yeakle v. Yeakle, 12 So. 3d 884, 885–86

(Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The parties’ stipulation was unambiguous and required no

clarification or modification. See Yeakle, 12 So. 3d at 886; Steiner v. Steiner, 638

So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

We therefore reverse the trial court’s imposition of an equalizing payment and

remand for its exclusion. This action does not require a further hearing. See Socol

v. Socol, 291 So. 3d 594, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

2 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and DISMISSED in part; with

instructions.

MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Jeffrey V. Mansell, of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Jeffrey A. Miller and Sander L. Miller, of Miller Law, Boca Raton, for Appellant.

Noha Hussein Hassan, Mobile, Alabama, pro se.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED