Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 17, 2021.
________________
No. 3D19-2524 Lower Tribunal No. 15-8600 ________________
Celso Corrales, Appellant,
vs.
Jeanette Corrales, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Bofill Law Group, and Jose C. Bofill, for appellant.
Kohlman Law LLLP, and Robert F. Kohlman, for appellee.
Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MILLER, J. We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously
issued opinion, and substitute the following in its stead:
Appellant, Celso Corrales, the husband, challenges an amended final
decree dissolving his marriage with appellee, Jeanette Corrales, the wife.
On appeal, the husband complains of various alleged errors, all grounded
upon a perceived lack of proof. We affirm and write only to address narrow
issues bearing upon the characterization, distribution, and valuation of
certain assets and the award of retroactive and ongoing alimony.1
BACKGROUND
The husband and wife wed nearly thirty years ago, and the union
yielded a son, now an adult. Immediately after their marriage, the couple
moved into a home in Westchester, Florida, owned solely by the husband,
and, together, worked long hours to build a lucrative automobile repair shop.
Both regularly drew salaries from the business.
1 We summarily deny the other claims raised on appeal. See SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 208 So. 3d 775, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“[A]n order that only determines entitlement to attorney’s fees and does not set the amount is a nonfinal and nonappealable order.”) (citation omitted); § 61.075(6)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (“‘Nonmarital assets and liabilities’ include: . . . [a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift.”).
2 Due to their occupational success, the couple enjoyed an affluent
lifestyle. They enrolled their son in private school, drove luxury automobiles,
accumulated vast collections of jewelry, watches, antiques, and firearms,
and acquired several pieces of art and real estate, including a condominium
unit on Miami Beach.
The marriage eventually deteriorated, and, in 2011, while the wife was
traveling with their son to a baseball tournament, the husband moved out of
the marital home. Upon returning, the wife and son found the interior of the
house in a state of disarray with two large safes open. The wife soon
discovered the husband had withdrawn nearly $190,000.00 from a jointly
held bank account and numerous items of value, including jewelry, watches,
financial records, furniture, antiques, and artwork, were missing from both
the marital home and the Miami Beach condominium.
Although the couple temporarily reunited, a permanent reconciliation
remained elusive. The husband began to openly withhold financial support
from the family by refusing to allow the wife to draw her usual salary and
cancelling her credit cards, failing to pay for utility services and maintenance
of the marital residence, and, inexplicably, insisting the son transfer into the
public school system for his final two years of high school.
3 In 2015, the husband filed for dissolution. The wife counter-petitioned,
and, following the closing of the pleadings, the case proceeded to a heavily
contested and protracted trial. After receiving testimony from the parties,
along with vocational and property experts, forensic accountants, and
attorneys, the lower tribunal entered a detailed final judgment, resolving
credibility disputes and setting forth a plan of equitable distribution. The
husband successfully moved for rehearing, resulting in the entry of an
amended decree, and the instant appeal ensued.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A trial court’s legal conclusion that an asset is marital or nonmarital is
subject to de novo review.” Bell v. Bell, 68 So. 3d 321, 328 (Fla. 4th DCA
2011) (citation omitted). However, an award of alimony, along with the
equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, is within the trial court’s broad
discretion. See McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008). Thus, in this context, our appellate review is limited to examining the
record to determine whether the court’s “findings regarding the amount of
alimony awarded,” Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003) (citation omitted), and the “valuation of marital assets . . . is supported
by competent, substantial evidence.” Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So. 3d 849, 853
(Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citation omitted).
4 LEGAL ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, the husband contends the lower tribunal
erroneously failed to award him a portion of the value of the marital home as
a nonmarital asset. The husband owned the residence prior to the union.
During the marriage, the parties obtained various advances from equity lines
of credit secured by the residence in order to fund the family business. The
debt incurred dwarfed the estimated premarital value of the property, and
marital income was used to satisfy repayment of the obligations.
It is axiomatic the husband bore the burden of proof to establish the
value of any nonmarital portion of the residence. See Konz v. Konz, 63 So.
3d 845, 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513, 517
(Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Nonetheless, here, he failed to timely frame the issue
in his pleadings, and the evidence presented below as to both historical value
and appreciation of the residence fell short of that degree which would justify
a finding of error. See Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012) (“[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the
pleadings. To grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion and
reversible error.”) (citations omitted); see also Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d
369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“It is well-settled that a trial court violates due
process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the
5 party did not request.”) (citations omitted); Baricchi v. Barry, 137 So. 3d 1196,
1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (finding due process was violated where spouse’s
“amended petition asserted new claims and requested relief that was not
specifically identified in the initial pleading”); Versen v. Versen, 347 So. 2d
1047, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (holding the liberality in granting motions to
amend the pleadings “gradually diminishes as the case progresses to trial”)
(citation omitted).
The husband further assails the unequal distribution of assets, along
with the valuation of the automotive repair business and a Ferrari. Although
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 17, 2021.
________________
No. 3D19-2524 Lower Tribunal No. 15-8600 ________________
Celso Corrales, Appellant,
vs.
Jeanette Corrales, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Bofill Law Group, and Jose C. Bofill, for appellant.
Kohlman Law LLLP, and Robert F. Kohlman, for appellee.
Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MILLER, J. We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously
issued opinion, and substitute the following in its stead:
Appellant, Celso Corrales, the husband, challenges an amended final
decree dissolving his marriage with appellee, Jeanette Corrales, the wife.
On appeal, the husband complains of various alleged errors, all grounded
upon a perceived lack of proof. We affirm and write only to address narrow
issues bearing upon the characterization, distribution, and valuation of
certain assets and the award of retroactive and ongoing alimony.1
BACKGROUND
The husband and wife wed nearly thirty years ago, and the union
yielded a son, now an adult. Immediately after their marriage, the couple
moved into a home in Westchester, Florida, owned solely by the husband,
and, together, worked long hours to build a lucrative automobile repair shop.
Both regularly drew salaries from the business.
1 We summarily deny the other claims raised on appeal. See SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 208 So. 3d 775, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“[A]n order that only determines entitlement to attorney’s fees and does not set the amount is a nonfinal and nonappealable order.”) (citation omitted); § 61.075(6)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (“‘Nonmarital assets and liabilities’ include: . . . [a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift.”).
2 Due to their occupational success, the couple enjoyed an affluent
lifestyle. They enrolled their son in private school, drove luxury automobiles,
accumulated vast collections of jewelry, watches, antiques, and firearms,
and acquired several pieces of art and real estate, including a condominium
unit on Miami Beach.
The marriage eventually deteriorated, and, in 2011, while the wife was
traveling with their son to a baseball tournament, the husband moved out of
the marital home. Upon returning, the wife and son found the interior of the
house in a state of disarray with two large safes open. The wife soon
discovered the husband had withdrawn nearly $190,000.00 from a jointly
held bank account and numerous items of value, including jewelry, watches,
financial records, furniture, antiques, and artwork, were missing from both
the marital home and the Miami Beach condominium.
Although the couple temporarily reunited, a permanent reconciliation
remained elusive. The husband began to openly withhold financial support
from the family by refusing to allow the wife to draw her usual salary and
cancelling her credit cards, failing to pay for utility services and maintenance
of the marital residence, and, inexplicably, insisting the son transfer into the
public school system for his final two years of high school.
3 In 2015, the husband filed for dissolution. The wife counter-petitioned,
and, following the closing of the pleadings, the case proceeded to a heavily
contested and protracted trial. After receiving testimony from the parties,
along with vocational and property experts, forensic accountants, and
attorneys, the lower tribunal entered a detailed final judgment, resolving
credibility disputes and setting forth a plan of equitable distribution. The
husband successfully moved for rehearing, resulting in the entry of an
amended decree, and the instant appeal ensued.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A trial court’s legal conclusion that an asset is marital or nonmarital is
subject to de novo review.” Bell v. Bell, 68 So. 3d 321, 328 (Fla. 4th DCA
2011) (citation omitted). However, an award of alimony, along with the
equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, is within the trial court’s broad
discretion. See McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008). Thus, in this context, our appellate review is limited to examining the
record to determine whether the court’s “findings regarding the amount of
alimony awarded,” Farley v. Farley, 858 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003) (citation omitted), and the “valuation of marital assets . . . is supported
by competent, substantial evidence.” Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So. 3d 849, 853
(Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citation omitted).
4 LEGAL ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, the husband contends the lower tribunal
erroneously failed to award him a portion of the value of the marital home as
a nonmarital asset. The husband owned the residence prior to the union.
During the marriage, the parties obtained various advances from equity lines
of credit secured by the residence in order to fund the family business. The
debt incurred dwarfed the estimated premarital value of the property, and
marital income was used to satisfy repayment of the obligations.
It is axiomatic the husband bore the burden of proof to establish the
value of any nonmarital portion of the residence. See Konz v. Konz, 63 So.
3d 845, 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513, 517
(Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Nonetheless, here, he failed to timely frame the issue
in his pleadings, and the evidence presented below as to both historical value
and appreciation of the residence fell short of that degree which would justify
a finding of error. See Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA
2012) (“[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the
pleadings. To grant unrequested relief is an abuse of discretion and
reversible error.”) (citations omitted); see also Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d
369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“It is well-settled that a trial court violates due
process and commits reversible error when it grants a party relief that the
5 party did not request.”) (citations omitted); Baricchi v. Barry, 137 So. 3d 1196,
1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (finding due process was violated where spouse’s
“amended petition asserted new claims and requested relief that was not
specifically identified in the initial pleading”); Versen v. Versen, 347 So. 2d
1047, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (holding the liberality in granting motions to
amend the pleadings “gradually diminishes as the case progresses to trial”)
(citation omitted).
The husband further assails the unequal distribution of assets, along
with the valuation of the automotive repair business and a Ferrari. Although
the discretion of the trial court in disposing of marital property is tempered by
Florida’s statutory presumption in favor of equal distribution, the law
recognizes there are certain instances where “there is a justification for
unequal distribution based on all the relevant factors.” § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat.
In accord with these principles, “a trial court need not equalize the financial
position of the parties” but must “ensure that neither spouse passes
automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to misfortune.”
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204 (Fla. 1980).
Here, after presiding over the lengthy trial, the lower court rendered an
exhaustive order, detailing the intentional misconduct of the husband in
secreting and dissipating assets, all purportedly in preparation for his future
6 dissolution filing. Moreover, the valuations embraced by the lower tribunal
were grounded upon expert opinion. Recognizing “the trial court’s superior
vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings
of fact,” we conclude the challenged findings are well-supported by
competent, substantial evidence. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla.
2001).
Lastly, given the evidence regarding the length of the marriage, needs
of the wife, and disparity in income and earning ability, along with the lavish
marital lifestyle, we find no abuse of discretion in either of the alimony
awards. See Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004, 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm the decision under review in its entirety.
Affirmed.