Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 24, 2024
Docket2023-0166
StatusPublished

This text of Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli (Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli) 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
Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0166 Lower Tribunal No. 18-12194 ________________

Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Paola Mantegazza Pomelli, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge.

The Strategic Legal Group, PLLC, and Carl D. Berry (Boca Raton), for appellants.

The Alderman Law Firm, and Amy Steele Donner; Nelson Mullins, and Kimberly J. Freedman and Erin K. Kolmansberger, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellants challenge a December 30, 2022 final judgment, along with

a January 4, 2023 order denying rehearing of the final judgment. Consistent

with orders rendered in a Brazilian divorce proceeding, the final judgment

disbursed assets in Florida held by various Florida limited liability companies

owned by PMP Holding, Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company that is owned

by the former husband and former wife.1 Also, in paragraph 10 of the

challenged judgment, the trial court expressly preserved an October 11,

2019 writ of bodily attachment that the trial court issued after the former

husband failed to attend a hearing at which the former husband was to show

cause as to why the former husband violated a prior court order.

We affirm the final judgment in all respects, except that we quash

paragraph 10 of the final judgment because it has been mooted by our

affirmance of the final judgment. See, e.g., Oliver v. Stone, 940 So. 2d 526,

529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“All interlocutory proceedings . . . are merged into

and disposed of by the final judgment.”).

Affirmed in part; quashed in part.

1 The former husband is appellant Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli and the former wife is appellee Paola Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli.

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

Related

Oliver v. Stone
940 So. 2d 526 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paulo Cesar Mantegazza Pomelli v. Paola Mantegazza Pomelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulo-cesar-mantegazza-pomelli-v-paola-mantegazza-pomelli-fladistctapp-2024.