DANIELA DALMAZZO
v.
ENZO DALMAZZO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court's factual finding that a party timely exercised a prenuptial agreement option must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] A trial court's factual findings regarding the application and exercise of a prenuptial agreement are reviewed for competence and substantiality of the evidence supportin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniela and Enzo Dalmazzo were parties to a prenuptial agreement that provided options for disposing of jointly owned marital property, including thei…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prenuptial Agreement Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 31, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2072 Lower Tribunal No. 20-18449
________________
Daniela Dalmazzo,
Appellant,
vs.
Enzo Dalmazzo,
Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Espinosa Dennis, Judge. Filler Rodriguez LLP, and Catherine M. Rodriguez, for appellant. Orshan, Spann & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this marriage dissolution action between appellant Daniela
Dalmazzo (“Wife”) and appellee Denzo Dalmazzo (“Husband”), Wife appeals
several aspects of the trial court’s November 3, 2022 final judgment of
dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties’ prenuptial agreement provided multiple options for the
parties, upon dissolution of their marriage, to dispose of jointly owned marital
property, including the parties’ marital home. The challenged final judgment
found that Husband had timely exercised the agreement’s option allowing
Husband to purchase Wife’s interest in the home at a fair market value to be
determined by an appraiser. The prenuptial agreement is clear and
unambiguous, though, that, to invoke this option, Husband was required to
give written notice to Wife no later than the sooner of (i) thirty days before
the scheduled commencement of mediation, or (ii) forty-five days after
Husband became aware of the dissolution proceeding.
The trial court’s finding that Husband timely exercised this option is not
supported by competent, substantial evidence; therefore, we reverse that
portion of the final judgment making this determination,1 and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.2 We otherwise affirm the
final judgment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence.”). 2 Our reversal on this point renders moot Wife’s argument that the final judgment is flawed because it failed to attach “Exhibit C” that is referenced in the final judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Pardes v. Andria Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)