JUAN M. ALVAREZ v. LINA PAOLA JIMENEZ
20-1038
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2021Background
- Parents (Alvarez and Jimenez) have two children; Father filed for dissolution in Florida in July 2015 asserting Florida residency and attaching UCCJEA affidavits about the children’s residences.
- Mother did not respond; court entered default and a default final judgment (Jan. 4, 2016) awarding Father sole parental responsibility, finding Florida was the children’s habitual residence and that Mother wrongfully retained the children in Colombia.
- Mother moved to vacate the child-custody and child-related portions of the final judgment; after a two-day evidentiary hearing the trial court granted the motion and vacated those portions, finding Colombia (not Florida) was the children’s home state and that Florida lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- The trial court separately awarded Mother $180,400.72 in attorney’s fees under §61.535 (UCCJEA enforcement fee statute). Father appealed both the vacatur and the fee award.
- The appellate court affirmed vacatur (finding competent substantial evidence supported the home-state ruling and rejecting the judicial-estoppel claim) but reversed the §61.535 fee award, holding that §61.535 applies to enforcement of a foreign custody decree, not to a motion to vacate; remanded for a de novo fee hearing under §61.16.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida court had initial child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (home-state) | Alvarez: Florida was the children’s habitual residence and court had jurisdiction | Jimenez: Children’s home state was Colombia; Florida lacked jurisdiction | Court affirmed vacatur — competent substantial evidence supported finding Colombia was home state; Florida lacked jurisdiction under §61.514 |
| Whether judicial estoppel barred Mother from challenging the default custody ruling | Alvarez: Mother’s prior statements/positions estopped her from contesting jurisdiction | Mother: No estoppel; even if inconsistent positions existed, estoppel cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction | Court rejected judicial estoppel — Father failed to satisfy elements and estoppel cannot create jurisdiction |
| Whether Mother was entitled to attorney’s fees under §61.535 (UCCJEA enforcement) | Mother: Prevailing party; fees authorized under §61.535 | Father: §61.535 governs enforcement of foreign custody decrees, not vacatur motions | Reversed — §61.535 inapplicable because Mother sought vacatur, not enforcement; fee award under that statute vacated |
| Whether Mother may recover fees under §61.16 (family-law fee statute) | Mother: May be entitled to fees under §61.16 | Father: Concedes potential applicability but disputes entitlement/amount | Remanded — case sent back for de novo hearing on entitlement and amount under §61.16 (court to consider relative financial resources and Rosen factors) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Lebron, 284 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (standard: competent substantial evidence for home-state factual findings)
- Holub v. Holub, 54 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (review of trial court's application of UCCJEA to facts is for competent substantial evidence)
- Golden Cape of Fla., Inc. v. Ospina, 324 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel)
- Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (elements and limits of judicial estoppel)
- Nagl v. Navarro, 187 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (§61.535 applies to enforcement proceedings under the UCCJEA)
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (purpose and factors for awarding fees under §61.16)
- Spano v. Bruce, 62 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (standard of review: statutory interpretation of fee statutes is de novo)
- Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (considerations for awarding fees and expenses)