Case ID: so3d_274/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MILLER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alberto RIVERA, Appellant, v. Maria Teresa RIVERA, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-1338
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed May 29, 2019
    Kevin Coyle Colbert, Miami, for appellant.
    The Padron Law Group, P.L.L.C., and Luis M. Padron, Coral Gables and Brian D. Fell, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
   MILLER, J.

As neither party sought to partition the marital home, the body of jurisprudence relied upon by the former husband in furtherance of appellate relief is inapposite. Accordingly, we find no error and affirm. See Gulledge v. Gulledge, 82 So.3d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (narrowly holding that in partition cases "the trial court err[s] by failing to include a deadline for the refinancing or sale of the marital home"); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So.2d 393, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (discussing that in partition cases "the judgment must fix a reasonable deadline by which the sale must take place"); see also Smilack v. Smilack, 858 So.2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[A] trial court may enforce the provisions of a final judgment through any appropriate remedy.") (citing Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ).

Affirmed.