Edwin E. Cortes v. Silvia L. Cortes

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 31, 2026
Docket3D2026-0231
StatusPublished

This text of Edwin E. Cortes v. Silvia L. Cortes (Edwin E. Cortes v. Silvia L. Cortes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwin E. Cortes v. Silvia L. Cortes, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 31, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0231 Lower Tribunal No. 14-14667-FC-04 ________________

Edwin E. Cortes, Appellant,

vs.

Silvia L. Cortes, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Vizcaino, Judge.

Edwin E. Cortes, in proper person.

Silvia L. Cortes, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for the Florida Department of Revenue.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ. On Confession of Error

PER CURIAM.

Edwin E. Cortes (“Husband”) appeals1 a January 12, 2026 trial court

post-decretal order approving a recommended order of the general

magistrate granting intervenor Florida Department of Revenue’s (“the

Department”) motion for civil contempt (and associated motions) for

Husband’s failure to pay a child support arrearage.

Husband argues that, because Husband timely objected to the trial

court’s order referring the matter to the general magistrate, the general

magistrate lacked the authority to conduct the hearing on the Department’s

motions. The Department commendably concedes that we should reverse

the challenged order because (i) Husband timely objected to the

appointment of a general magistrate to hear its motions, and (ii) pursuant to

Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.490(b)(1), no matter may be heard

by a general magistrate without consent of the parties. We, therefore,

reverse the trial court’s January 12, 2026 order and remand for proceedings

not inconsistent with this opinion.

1 Husband challenged the subject contempt order via a petition for writ of certiorari. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), we treat Husband’s petition as an appeal of the challenged order because the trial court’s contempt order is an appealable, post-decretal final order. See Phanord v. Phanord, 411 So. 3d 568, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

2 Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edwin E. Cortes v. Silvia L. Cortes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-e-cortes-v-silvia-l-cortes-fladistctapp-2026.