Hector Izquierdo v. Marine Iglesias

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0017
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 11, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0017 Lower Tribunal No. 22-23182-FC-04 ________________

Hector Izquierdo, Appellant,

vs.

Marine Iglesias, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.

Puzo Law, and Leslie Puzo (Hollywood), for appellant.

Cristobal D. Padron & Associates, P.A., and Cristobal D. Padron, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Hector Izquierdo, the father, appeals from a final judgment

of paternity establishing a parenting plan and timesharing schedule and

awarding child support. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.

9.030(b)(1)(A). The father raises a myriad of issues on appeal. Appellee,

Marine Iglesias, the mother, commendably concedes the judgment

impermissibly fails to “[d]escribe . . . the methods and technologies that the

parents will use to communicate with the child.” See § 61.13(2)(b)(4), Fla.

Stat. (2024). We summarily affirm in all other respects, save the support

calculation because it contravenes the monthly net income reflected on the

child support guidelines worksheet attached to the judgment and is

inconsistent with the percentage of timesharing awarded to the respective

parties.1 See Campbell v. Jara, 392 So. 3d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)

(reversing “child support award due to mathematical and factual errors”);

Skelly v. Skelly, 300 So. 3d 342, 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (reversing where

use of “worksheet is inconsistent with the child support awarded by the court

in its final judgment”); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings,

the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so

as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence

1 The father’s timesharing award equates to 27%.

2 or by an alternative theory.”); Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530(a) (“To preserve for

appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings

of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for

rehearing under this rule.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand only as to

these two discrete issues.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.