Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 28, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-2310
Lower Tribunal No. 18-14905-FC-04
Yaimi Alvarez,
Appellant,
vs.
Raiza Cueto, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge.
Angulo Diaz Law Group, P.A., and Yelina Angulo, for appellant.
Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and William D. Mueller, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
Appellant, Yaimi Alvarez challenges a post-judgment order compelling
the sale of a marital property entered after a hearing on Appellee, Raiza
Cueto’s motion to compel sale of property. Alvarez raises numerous issues
on appeal. We dismiss as premature Alvarez’s appeal of the award of
attorney’s fees and costs. In all other aspects, we affirm.1
By way of background, on August 26, 2022, the trial court entered a
Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage between Alvarez and Miguel A.
Ramos, the Former Husband (the “Dissolution Judgment”). The Dissolution
Judgment established the parties’ property rights and ordered the equitable
distribution of marital assets and liabilities.
The Dissolution Judgment ordered the sale of four marital properties
within specified timeframes, including real property located on 12810 SW
18th Street, Miami, FL 33175 (the “Property”) and the assisted living facility
business that existed on that property, Aldara Home, Inc. (the “Business”).
Regarding the Property and Business at issue in this appeal, the Dissolution
Judgment provided:
12810 SW 18th Street, Miami, FL 3317: Property
shall be listed for sale and the net proceeds after
payment of all liabilities, brokers’ fees and closing
costs shall be equally split between the Parties.
1
On all other issues unrelated to the trial court’s grant of attorney’s fees and costs, we have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C).
2
Aldara Home, Inc.: Business was already ordered to
be listed for sale. Property shall be listed with Realtor
Luciana Gonzalez and upon the sale of same the net
proceeds after payment of all liabilities, brokers’ fees
and closing costs shall be equally split between the
Parties.
The Dissolution Judgment also reserved jurisdiction for enforcement
purposes, stating: “[t]he Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order.”
Ramos passed away several months after the Dissolution Judgment.
Raiza Cueto, as Personal Representative of Ramos’s Estate, was
substituted as a party as most of the assets contemplated in the Dissolution
Judgment had yet to be distributed under the Dissolution Judgment’s terms.
Following Cueto’s appearance, the trial court entered an Order on the
Former Husband’s Emergency Motion to Enforce Final Judgment (the
“Enforcement Order”), which established additional procedures for the courtordered sale of the remaining properties, including both the Property and the
Business. The Enforcement Order allowed Alvarez to purchase the Property
and the Business for $600,000, but absent that timely purchase, the order
set listing prices, timeframes, an agreed upon realtor (the “Realtor”), and
reiterated the parties’ obligation to sell the properties as required by the
Dissolution Judgment.
3
Alvarez did not make an offer to purchase the Property and the
Business within the time specified in the Enforcement Order. Thus, the
Realtor listed the Property and Business for sale.
In January 2024, a prospective buyer executed purchase agreements
for both the Business and the Property (the “Purchase Agreements”). But
nearly a year later, the transactions did not close. During that time, Alvarez
had allowed the mortgage loan on the Property to become delinquent. By
October 2024, foreclosure proceedings had been initiated against the
Property, with the lender claiming that Alvarez had not made mortgage
payments since May 2024. The prospective buyer was nevertheless willing
to purchase the Property to avoid foreclosure despite not finalizing the
purchase of the Business.
In response, Cueto filed an Urgent Motion to Compel Sale of Property
(the “Motion to Compel”), seeking immediate enforcement of the sale
provisions in the Dissolution Judgment to prevent foreclosure and protect the
marital estate.
On November 19, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the Motion to
Compel. On November 26, 2024, the trial court granted the Motion (the
“Order Compelling Sale”). The Order Compelling Sale ordered the
immediate sale of the Property to preserve value and prevent foreclosure.
4
Alvarez then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The trial court, following
another hearing, denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an unelaborated
order. 2 This timely appeal followed.
After a thorough review of the record before us, the procedural and
factual history and the applicable law, and limited specifically to the facts of
this case, we find the trial court committed no reversible error in compelling
the sale of the Property that the Dissolution Judgment already mandated.
In addition, the trial court's ruling on attorney's fees and costs only
addressed entitlement and did not set an amount. So, we lack jurisdiction to
review this issue and dismiss this aspect of the appeal as premature. See
Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159, 160 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Smith v. Smith,
169 So. 3d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).3
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
2
The record does not contain a transcript of either hearing held before the trial court.
3
Neither party questioned our jurisdiction to review the attorney’s fees and costs findings on appeal. That said, we “have an independent duty to determine the existence of jurisdiction in every case” and must dismiss those issues over which there is no jurisdiction. Bloomgarden v. Mandel, 154 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
5