MARY ANN JAMES DE HOLGUIN v. CAMILA HOLGUIN GODIN

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 21-1560
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 26, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1560 Lower Tribunal No. 20-21229 ________________

Mary Ann James de Holguin, Appellant,

vs.

Camila Holguin Godin, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Samantha Ruiz Cohen, Judge.

Holland & Knight LLP, Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., and Rebecca M. Plasencia, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Jamie B. Wasserman (Fort Lauderdale); Shutts & Bowen LLP, Steven M. Ebner and Julissa Rodriguez, for appellees.

Before HENDON, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J.

Mary Ann James de Holguin, the decedent’s wife, (the “Wife”) appeals

an order dismissing her amended complaint against the decedent’s daughter Camila Holguin Godin (the “Daughter”), as an individual and representative

of the estate of Rodrigo Holguin Lourido (the “Decedent”), and Majaroho

LLC, for forum non conveniens. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P.

9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii). Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s ruling, we

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Wife and the Decedent were in a long-term marriage and

remained married until his death on December 29, 2019. The Decedent had

three children from a prior marriage, including the Daughter. The couple

were residents of Colombia who lived on their property in Florida for a few

months of the year. During the course of the marriage the Wife and

Decedent entered into multiple agreements regarding the dispensation of

their property, including a “Memorandum of Understanding” (“MOU”). The

MOU, which is written in Spanish, was signed and executed at the office of

Holland & Knight in Bogota, Colombia on October 7, 2019. The MOU deals

primarily with the couple’s Colombian assets and unequivocally mandates

its terms are governed by Colombian law.

In June 2020, the Daughter commenced a probate proceeding in

Miami-Dade. The Daughter’s petition noted there was already ongoing

probate proceedings in Colombia. The Wife filed objections to the Florida

2 proceedings. Five months later, the Wife filed the instant independent

creditor action, raising claims against the Daughter and Majaroho relating to

the MOU. The Daughter and Majaroho moved to dismiss for forum non

conveniens arguing Colombia was the more appropriate forum and the

ongoing probate case in Colombia centered on many of the same issues

raised by the pleadings filed in this action.

The trial court held a full evidentiary hearing and—after applying the

factors set forth in Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 94 (Fla.

1996)—granted the motion to dismiss finding that Colombia was the

appropriate forum for these claims and dismissal was warranted under forum

non conveniens. This appeal followed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss based on

forum non conveniens grounds is “subject to review for abuse of discretion.”

Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 94. “[T]he trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with

a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be

disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly

erroneous.” Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288,

290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

3 In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the four-step test to

address forum non conveniens challenges. See Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 90

(quoting Pain v. United Techs. Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 784–85 (D.C. Cir.

1980)). This test was later codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure

1.061(a).1 The burden of persuasion for each factor is on the moving party.

See Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Here, the trial court properly addressed all four Kinney factors, and we

find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the Daughter

and Majaroho provided sufficient competent, substantial evidence to show

that Colombia was an adequate alternative forum. See Abeid-Saba v.

1 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 provides: (a) Grounds for Dismissal. An action may be dismissed on the ground that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida when: (1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties; (2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice; (3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and (4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

4 Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“An alternative

forum is adequate if it provides for litigation of the subject matter of the

dispute and potentially offers redress for plaintiffs’ injuries.” (quoting King v.

Cessna Aircraft Co., 562 F.3d 1374, 1382 (11th Cir. 2009)); GLF Constr.

Corp. v. Credinform Int’l, S.A., 225 So. 3d 377, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

(finding no abuse of discretion where “review of the record, including the

transcript of the hearing, establishes that the trial court conducted a proper,

adequate analysis” of the Kinney factors).

Affirmed.