DE CORDOVA v. DE CORDOVA (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Giuliana Gomez DE CORDOVA n/k/a Giuliana Llanso, Appellant, v. Jose Gomez DE CORDOVA, Appellee.

No. 3D19-2257

Decided: January 20, 2021

Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

Cruz Legal, P.A., and Marisol Cruz; Martinez-Scanziani & Associates Law, P.A. and Denise Martinez-Scanziani, for appellant. Valdespino & Associates, P.A., and Jacqueline M. Valdespino, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Llanso v. Gomez de Cordova, 263 So. 3d 137, 140-41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (noting that “[o]ur reversal, however, is without prejudice to the trial court's re-entry of a similar final judgment and subsequent orders as the interlocutory appeal has been dismissed”); see also Cadwell v. Cadwell, 549 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (explaining that a final judgment may be reentered on remand “as the trial court deems appropriate”); Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson, 82 So. 3d 137, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“We note that, on remand, the trial court is authorized to re-enter the final judgment since the interlocutory appeals that prevented that court from disposing of the case have been resolved with finality.”).

Both appellant and appellee move for appellate attorney's fees. Pursuant to Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), we remand both motions for appellate attorney's fees to the trial court for further proceedings thereon.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network