Carlos Ernesto Rojas v. Carolina Mejia Londono

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0455 Lower Tribunal No. 22-5096-FC-04 ________________

Carlos Ernesto Rojas, Appellant,

vs.

Carolina Mejia Londono, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

Ilene F. Tuckfield, P.A. and Ilene F. Tuckfield, for appellant.

Sarmiento Law, PLLC and Francesca L. Sarmiento (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. Carlos Ernesto Rojas (the “Husband”) appeals a final order denying his

petition for annulment of marriage against Carolina Mejia Londono (the

“Wife”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no

error in the trial court’s order, we affirm.

On appeal, the Husband asserts that an annulment is proper because

the parties never consummated the marriage and the Wife married him solely

for immigration benefits, committing fraud. 1 Because the record contains

ample evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that the parties

consummated the marriage and the Wife did not enter the marriage to

commit fraud, we find the trial court properly denied the Husband’s petition

for annulment of marriage. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.530, 346 So. 3d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 2022) (“To preserve for appeal

a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment,

a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Sack

v. Sack, 184 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (“Where a marriage is

validly contracted it should not be dissolved other than by divorce, or by a

decree of annulment supported by allegation and proof of recognized

grounds for annulment of marriage. The record of this case discloses no

asserted ground or evidence to justify a decree of annulment in favor of the

1 We affirm the other issues raised without further discussion.

2 husband . . . Here the parties, according to the allegations and proof, entered

into a valid marriage contract . . . The evidence does not establish existence

of any of the grounds for annulment as outlined above.”).

Affirmed.