Carlos G. Sanchez v. Gladys M. Sanchez

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1663
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-1663 Lower Tribunal No. 17-1952

Carlos G. Sanchez, Appellant,

vs.

Gladys M. Sanchez, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge.

Lorenzen Law P.A., and Dirk Lorenzen, for appellant.

Raquel A. Rodriguez & Assoc., and Raquel A. Rodriguez; Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A., and Lauri Waldman Ross, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J. Carlos Sanchez (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s non-final

order granting Gladys Sanchez’s (“Former Wife”) motion for contempt. We

reverse in part and remand as to the Former Wife’s confession of error and

affirm as to all other issues.

After final judgment was entered in this dissolution of marriage case,

Former Husband and Former Wife entered into a Final Settlement

Agreement (“FSA”) resolving ongoing disputes in the family court case and

in a separate civil court case. As a result of Former Husband’s failure to pay

Former Wife under the terms of the FSA, Former Wife moved for contempt.

After conducting two hearings on the motion and renewed motion, the trial

court entered an order granting the motion. Former Husband appealed.

This Court has jurisdiction over non-final orders that “determine[ ] the

right to immediate possession of property” and “determine[,] in family law

matters[,] the right to immediate monetary relief” under Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), (iii)(a). The standard of review of a

trial court’s findings of contempt is abuse of discretion. See Fox v. Haislett,

388 So. 2d 1261, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

On appeal, the Former Wife confessed the following error: “[T]he order

improperly added the Former Husband’s current wife and required her

execution of documents necessary to effectuate the note and mortgage[ ]

2 and ordered [attorney’s] fees for preparation of the foregoing note and

mortgage.” (Emphasis in original). We agree that this was error, reverse in

part, and remand to correct the error stated in the Former Wife’s confession.

Indian Harbor Ests., Inc. v. Wagner, 148 So. 2d 757, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA

1963) (“In this posture of [the] appeal[,] our conclusion is to reverse the said

[order] upon the said confession of errors without expressing any opinion as

to the extent of the error or errors. The [order] is therefore reversed and the

cause remanded for such proceedings as are consistent with the laws and

rules of practice governing such cases.”).

We affirm as to all other issues. See State v. Clark, 373 So. 3d 1128,

1131 (Fla. 2023) (“It is well established that issues not properly preserved

are waived Parties are required to preserve arguments because it allows

the lower tribunal to consider and resolve errors when they arise, rather than

wait for the process of an appeal and expend the judicial resources that come

with that procedure.”); DeHoff v. Imeson, 15 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1943)

(“[B]y lapse of time the issues presented have become moot............”);

Mohammad v. Mohammad, 371 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)

(“The record reflects that the appellant proposed to pay for his two children's

[c]ollege expenses including books, tuition, [r]oom and board, supplies and

fees for a period of [f]our years. The trial court simply accepted the offer of

3 the appellant[,] and he may not now be heard to urge that the court erred in

doing so. If such provision was error, then it was invited, induced by the

appellant[,] and he may not be heard to complain here.”).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.