Anthony Clark v. Pamela Clark

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1465
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1465 Lower Tribunal No. 21-11461-FC-04

Anthony Clark, Appellant,

vs.

Pamela Clark, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Scott M. Bernstein, Judge. Marro Law, P.A., and Meaghan K. Marro (Plantation), for appellant.

Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., and Pamela M. Gordon (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J. Anthony Clark (“the Former Husband”) appeals the Amended Final

Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, entered on September 9, 2024.

Because the Former Husband failed to file post-judgment motions seeking

relief and failed to file the hearing transcript, we affirm.

The underlying case concerns a typical dissolution of marriage that

concluded in a final judgment, entered on May 16, 2024. Thereafter, Pamala

Clark (“the Former Wife”) moved for rehearing on a variety of issues. The

Former Husband never responded to the hearing, did not object, and did not

appear. Upon the trial court’s request, the Former Wife filed a proposed

amended final judgment, which the trial court executed on July 19, 2024, and

docketed on September 9, 2024. The child support guidelines were not

attached to the amended final judgment, though they were attached to the

original final judgment.

The Former Husband did not file any post-judgment motions seeking

relief under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530 or 12.540. As a

result, no issues were preserved for appellate review prior to filing his Notice

of Appeal on August 20, 2024. Former Husband did not file the transcript of

the hearing.

On appeal, the Former Husband argues many issues including that his

due process rights were violated when he did not receive a copy of the

2 Former Wife’s motion for rehearing, the notice of hearing on the motion for

rehearing, or the amended final judgment.

The standard of review for a dissolution of marriage final judgment is

abuse of discretion. Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981, 985 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2006).

On appeal, the Former Husband assigns error on six issues: 1) the trial

court did not exercise independent decision making in the amended final

judgment; 2) the trial court denied the Former Husband due process; 3) the

trial court erred in its findings related to equitable distribution and attorney’s

fees; 4) the trial court erred in imputing income to the Former Husband; 5)

the trial court erred in calculating alimony, child support, and other support

related matters; and 6) the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the

Former Wife.

The issue of service was not raised before the trial court pursuant to

Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530 or 12.540 and Florida Rule of

Civil Procedure 1.140 and is therefore not preserved for appeal. See Fla. R.

Civ. P. 1.140(h)(1) (“A party waives all defenses and objections that the party

does not present either by motion under subdivisions (b), (e), or (f) of this

rule or, if the party has made no motion, in a responsive pleading except as

provided in subdivision (h)(2).”); Dolan v. Dolan, 81 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla. 3d

3 DCA 2012) (“If not raised in a responsive pleading or by motion filed by a

party, an objection to improper service of process is waived.”); Parlier v.

Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 622 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (“There

is a general rule of appellate review, based on practical necessity and

fairness to the opposing party and the trial judge, that issues not timely raised

below will not be considered on appeal. The rule applies to issues of

procedural irregularities ” (internal citation omitted)).

As to the factual issues, the Former Husband failed to file transcripts

of the proceedings below in addition to not raising these issues before the

trial court. Magana v. Machado, 406 So. 3d 317, 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

(“We note, as a threshold matter, that Former Husband has not provided a

transcript of the proceedings in the lower court and therefore (absent a

supportable claim of fundamental error) Former Husband has failed to

provide an adequate record for meaningful review of those claims which we

would review for competent substantial evidence or under an abuse of

discretion standard In addition, and to the extent Former Husband claims

the trial court failed to make requisite factual findings in the final judgment, it

has not been properly preserved because Former Husband failed to file a

motion for rehearing in the trial court.”).

4 Because the Former Husband failed to file post-judgment motions

seeking relief and failed to file the hearing transcript, we affirm.

Affirmed.