Arturo Oval v. Aura Felipa Leal

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1500
• Status: 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,

2 559 (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.”).