Background
A final judgment dissolving Yaimi Alvarez’s marriage to Miguel A. Ramos ordered the sale of four marital properties, including a Miami property at 12810 SW 18th Street and the assisted-living business operating there. The judgment required the parties to split net sale proceeds and retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
After Ramos died, Raiza Cueto, as personal representative of his estate, was substituted into the case. An enforcement order gave Alvarez an opportunity to buy the property and business for $600,000; when she did not do so, they were listed for sale. Although a buyer executed purchase agreements in January 2024, the transactions did not close. Alvarez then became delinquent on the property mortgage, foreclosure proceedings began, and Cueto moved to compel an immediate sale of the property to prevent foreclosure.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the post-judgment order compelling the sale of the property. The court concluded that, on the facts presented, the trial court committed no reversible error by enforcing the sale already required by the dissolution judgment.
The court dismissed Alvarez’s challenge to attorney’s fees and costs as premature. The trial court had decided only entitlement to fees and costs, not their amount, leaving no appealable fee award for the appellate court to review.
Key Takeaways
- A dissolution judgment that mandates sale of marital property may be enforced post-judgment to preserve the asset and avert foreclosure.
- Reservation of jurisdiction to enforce a dissolution judgment supports later orders implementing its sale provisions.
- An appeal from a fee ruling is premature when entitlement is decided but the amount has not yet been set.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a court may enforce an existing equitable-distribution sale directive when delay threatens the value of marital property. It also underscores the appellate-jurisdiction limit on fee appeals: a determination of entitlement alone generally is not yet reviewable.