LUIS DURAN
v.
ROMMY DURAN
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.
Luis Duran appealed a trial court order declining to enforce a prenuptial agreement between him and his former wife. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because competent substantial evidence supported the ruling.
The trial court's order declining to enforce the prenuptial agreement is affirmed because it is supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] An appellate court reviewing a trial court's determination regarding prenuptial agreement enforcement applies the competent substantial evidence standard and may not retr…
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 intelligence“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it.”
Establishes the standard of review that appellate courts must follow when reviewing trial court decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuis Duran and Rommy Duran were former spouses who had executed a prenuptial agreement. The trial court declined to enforce the prenuptial agreement, …
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 Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D24-0154 Lower Tribunal No. 21-15118 ________________
Luis Duran,
Appellant,
vs.
Rommy Duran,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts, Judge. Open Book Appeals, and Erin Pogue Newell (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. The Billbrough Firm, and G. Bart Billbrough, for appellee. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Luis Duran appeals the trial court’s order declining to enforce the prenuptial agreement between him and his former wife. Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling, we are constrained to affirm. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976) (“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it. The test, as pointed out in [Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)], is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.”); Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)
- Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)