Rios v. Quiala

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 3D18-898

Advocates

Law Offices of Perez-Ceballos, and Raul Perez-Ceballos, for appellant. Simon Schindler & Sandberg LLP, Neal L. Sandberg and Sherryll Martens Dunaj, for appellee.

Judges

GORDO, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Jesus Rios ("the Husband") petitioned for dissolution of marriage in 2014, seeking equitable distribution of marital assets and a partition of the couple's Miami Beach property ("the Property"). In 2004, the Husband signed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the Wife, Maribel Quiala, transferring his entire interest in the Property in exchange for $80,000. This transaction was contemporaneously memorialized in a written agreement signed by both parties. The Husband cashed out his interest intending to use the money for separate investments. Despite this, the Husband later asserted that the Property remained marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Wife contended that the contract and deed extinguished the Husband’s claim, making her the sole owner entitled to unequal distribution. The Wife filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment supported by the quitclaim deed, the $80,000 payment evidence, and the written agreement. The Husband opposed the motion but acknowledged signing the deed and receiving the payment. The trial court granted the Wife's motion, finding the contract clear and enforceable with no genuine issues of material fact. Following a day-long trial, the court entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage incorporating the summary judgment order transferring all of the Husband’s interest in the Property to the Wife. The Husband appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in granting the Wife’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by finding the quitclaim deed and contemporaneous agreement constituted a clear and enforceable contract extinguishing the Husband’s interest in the Property.
Whether the trial court’s Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, incorporating the summary judgment order, was supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Husband asserted the Property remained marital property subject to equitable distribution despite the quitclaim deed and payment.
He argued the trial record lacked competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and final judgment.

Appellee's Arguments

The Wife contended the contract, quitclaim deed, and payment extinguished any claim the Husband had in the Property.
She argued she was the sole owner and entitled to unequal equitable distribution.
The Wife supported her motion for partial summary judgment with the deed, payment evidence, and written agreement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)	Standard of de novo review for summary judgment.	The court reviewed the trial court's ruling on partial summary judgment de novo and found no genuine issue of material fact.
Boyle v. Schmitt, 552 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)	General principles of contract law apply to contracts between spouses.	The court applied contract law principles to the quitclaim deed and agreement between the parties.
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Ameripalms 6B GP, Inc., 633 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)	Multiple documents executed contemporaneously concerning the same transaction are construed as a single contract.	The court construed the deed and written agreement together as one contract.
Gulliver Sch., Inc. v. Snay, 137 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)	Clear and unambiguous contracts must be construed as written without adding meaning.	The court found the contract clear and unambiguous and enforced it as written.
Khosrow Maleki, P.A. v. M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A., 771 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)	Contracts must be enforced as written when unambiguous.	Supported the court’s interpretation of the contract as unambiguous.
Int'l Expositions, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 274 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)	Court may not relieve a party from an improvident bargain by substituting its judgment.	The court declined to alter the contract terms despite any hardship.
Alvarado v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Alvarado, 194 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)	Trial court's orders are presumed correct; appellant must show error on the face of the judgment.	The court found the appellant failed to overcome the presumption of correctness.
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)	Without a trial record, appellate court cannot properly resolve factual disputes.	The court declined to overturn the judgment due to absence of trial transcript.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a de novo review of the trial court’s partial summary judgment order. It found the record devoid of any genuine issues of material fact concerning the contract between the parties. The quitclaim deed, contemporaneous written agreement, and evidence of payment established a clear and unambiguous contract conveying the Husband’s entire interest in the Property to the Wife. Applying settled contract law principles, the court construed the multiple documents as a single contract and enforced it as written without substituting its judgment for that of the parties. The court further concluded that the trial court did not err in entering a final judgment after a day-long trial, especially since the appellant failed to provide a trial transcript to challenge the evidentiary basis of the findings. The presumption of correctness attached to the trial court’s judgment remained unrebutted.

Holding and Implications

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment and the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.

The decision effectively confirms that the Husband relinquished all rights and interests in the marital property via the quitclaim deed and contemporaneous contract, precluding any equitable distribution claim on that property. This affirmation leaves the Wife as the sole owner of the Property. The opinion sets no new precedent beyond applying established contract and family law principles to the undisputed facts.

Show full summary ...

Jesus A. Rios, Appellant, v. Maribel Quiala, Appellee.

GORDO, J.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Lower Tribunal No. 16-1321 An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Sarah I. Zabel, Judge. Law Offices of Perez-Ceballos, and Raul Perez-Ceballos, for appellant. Simon Schindler & Sandberg LLP, Neal L. Sandberg and Sherryll Martens Dunaj, for appellee. Before SALTER, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J.

Jesus Rios ("the Husband") appeals the lower court's Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the later Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage rendered in favor of Maribel Quiala ("the Wife"). We affirm.

The Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage seeking equitable distribution of marital assets and a partition of the couple's Miami Beach property ("the Property") in 2014. In 2004, the Husband signed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the Wife receiving $80,000 in consideration for his right, title and interest in the Property, including his equitable rights and future profits. The quitclaim deed was executed contemporaneously with a written agreement signed by the parties, which memorialized the Husband's receipt of $80,000 in exchange for his interest in the Property. The Husband cashed-out his interest in the marital home because he wished to use the money for his own separate purposes such as investing in the stock market.

In seeking equitable distribution and a partition of the Property, the Husband asserted the residence was still marital property. The Wife contended the contract extinguished any claim by the Husband in the Property, and she was thus the sole owner of the Property and entitled to unequal equitable distribution. The Wife filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Amended Affidavit along with the quitclaim deed, check for $80,000 and the written agreement by the parties. The Husband filed a Motion in Opposition to Partial Summary Judgment and an Amended Affidavit wherein he acknowledged signing the quitclaim deed and receiving $80,000 in exchange for his interest in the Property.

After considering the evidence in the record and conducting a hearing on the partial summary judgment motion, the trial court ruled the transaction was a clear and unambiguous enforceable contract. The court found there were no genuine issues of material fact as to any of the following: (1) the Husband executed and delivered a quitclaim deed to the Wife conveying his entire interest in the Property, (2) the Wife paid the Husband $80,000, which was evidenced and acknowledged by the notarized written agreement, and (3) after the conveyance the Wife maintained the Property exclusively from her own earnings. The trial court granted the Wife's motion.

Thereafter, the case proceeded to a day-long trial. The court entered Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and incorporated its summary judgment order transferring all of the Husband's interest in the Property to the Wife. This appeal followed.

We review the trial court's ruling on the motion for partial summary judgment de novo. Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Based on the record before us, we conclude Appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing there remained any genuine issues of material fact regarding the contract.

The record reveals the trial court appropriately evaluated the evidence in light of applicable contract law. See Boyle v. Schmitt, 552 So. 2d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("[G]eneral principles of contract law apply to contracts between spouses . . . ."). "The law is well established that two or more documents executed by the same parties, at or near the same time, and concerning the same transaction or subject matter are generally construed together as a single contract." Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Ameripalms 6B GP, Inc., 633 So. 2d 47, 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citations omitted). "Where contracts are clear and unambiguous, they should be construed as written, and the court can give them no other meaning." Gulliver Sch., Inc. v. Snay, 137 So. 3d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Khosrow Maleki, P.A. v. M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A., 771 So. 2d 628, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). Courts "may not substitute their judgment for that of the parties in order to relieve one from an alleged hardship of an improvident bargain." Int'l Expositions, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 274 So. 2d 29, 30-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Moreover, we find no basis to conclude the trial court committed reversible error as to its entry of final judgment following a one-day trial on the remaining issues in dispute. "The trial court's order comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness, and Appellant has failed to overcome this presumption or establish any error of law apparent on the face of the final judgment." Alvarado v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Alvarado, 194 So. 3d 544, 545 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citations omitted). While the Husband argues the trial record lacked competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings, the Husband has failed to furnish a transcript of the trial proceedings for our review. "Without a record of the trial proceedings, [we] can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence . . . ." Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

Affirmed.