Daniela Dalmazzo v. Enzo Dalmazzo

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 31, 2024
• Docket: 2022-2072
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 31, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2072 Lower Tribunal No. 20-18449 ________________

Daniela Dalmazzo, Appellant,

vs.

Enzo Dalmazzo, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Espinosa Dennis, Judge.

Filler Rodriguez LLP, and Catherine M. Rodriguez, for appellant.

Orshan, Spann & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for appellee.

Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. In this marriage dissolution action between appellant Daniela

Dalmazzo (“Wife”) and appellee Denzo Dalmazzo (“Husband”), Wife appeals

several aspects of the trial court’s November 3, 2022 final judgment of

dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The parties’ prenuptial agreement provided multiple options for the

parties, upon dissolution of their marriage, to dispose of jointly owned marital

property, including the parties’ marital home. The challenged final judgment

found that Husband had timely exercised the agreement’s option allowing

Husband to purchase Wife’s interest in the home at a fair market value to be

determined by an appraiser. The prenuptial agreement is clear and

unambiguous, though, that, to invoke this option, Husband was required to

give written notice to Wife no later than the sooner of (i) thirty days before

the scheduled commencement of mediation, or (ii) forty-five days after

Husband became aware of the dissolution proceeding.

The trial court’s finding that Husband timely exercised this option is not

supported by competent, substantial evidence; therefore, we reverse that

portion of the final judgment making this determination, 1 and remand for

1 Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (observing that a trial court’s factual findings made with respect to the application of a prenuptial agreement are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence); Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual

2 further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 We otherwise affirm the

final judgment.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.

findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence.”). 2 Our reversal on this point renders moot Wife’s argument that the final judgment is flawed because it failed to attach “Exhibit C” that is referenced in the final judgment.