Jason Richard Baumann v. Sara Cardona Agudelo

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1809
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 8, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D23-1809; 3D23-1954 Lower Tribunal No. 18-20259 ________________

Jason Richard Baumann, Appellant,

vs.

Sara Cardona Agudelo, Appellee.

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

Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch (Hollywood), for appellant.

Law Offices of Richard G. Dunberg, and Richard G. Dunberg, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Helinksi v. Helinski, 305 So. 3d 703, 708 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020) (“[W]here the issue in litigation requires the trial court to determine

what is in the best interests of the child, the trial court has the discretion to

award attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 61.16, notwithstanding

any agreement between the parties purporting to prospectively waive the

right to seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”); Berstein v. Berstein,

498 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“The law is clear that the

parents may not contract away the rights of their child for support.” (quoting

Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979))); Engelsen

v. Landers, 699 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The point of

Bernstein is that if the parents cannot contract away a court's ability to act

in the best interests of their child, then they cannot contract away one

party's ability to obtain an advocate to see that the full story is developed in

a child related proceeding.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision

of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the

appellant to demonstrate error . . . 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 or by an alternative theory.”) (citations omitted).