Arturo Oval v. Aura Felipa Leal

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 18, 2026·No. 3D2024-1500·Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 18, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1500

Lower Tribunal No. 20-12564-FC-04

Arturo Oval,

Appellant,

vs.

Aura Felipa Leal,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz, Judge.

Harvey D. Rogers, P.A., and Harvey D. Rogers, for appellant.

Claudio R. Cedrez, LLC and Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 153 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2021) (“Generally, we review a trial court’s equitable distribution determination for an abuse of discretion. . . . ‘Where “there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings, the appellate court cannot” substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.’” (quoting Van Maerssen v. Gerdts, 295 So. 3d 819, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020))); Tercier v. Univ. of Miami, Inc., 383 So. 3d 847, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[W]hat is critical for a reviewing court is that a final judgment reflect the trial judge’s independent decision on the issues of a case, not that the judge used words drafted by one of the parties to express that decision.” (quoting Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217, 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Cabrera v. Cabrera, 987 So. 2d 753, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The trial court’s active participation in the proceedings supports our conclusion that there is no appearance that the trial court did not exercise its independent judgment when entering the final judgment in the instant case.”); Vindel v. Stewart, 388 So. 3d 228, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (cautioning that “[a] party in a divorce proceeding is not ‘entitled’ to [prejudgment] interest in every case, because the trial court must have broad discretion to determine the most equitable distribution of marital property under the particular circumstances” (quoting Mathers v. Brown, 21 So. 3d 834, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009))), review granted, No. SC2024-0428, 2024 WL 4686838 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2024); Iannuzzelli v. Lovett, 981 So. 2d 557,

559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The standard of review for an award or denial of attorney’s fees in a Florida dissolution of marriage proceeding is abuse of discretion.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arturo Oval v. Aura Felipa Leal, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Arturo Oval v. Aura Felipa Leal (Arturo Oval v. Aura Felipa Leal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Iannuzzelli v. Lovett
981 So. 2d 557 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Mathers v. Brown
21 So. 3d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Flint v. Fortson
744 So. 2d 1217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Cabrera v. Cabrera
987 So. 2d 753 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)