Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 26, 2023. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1560

Lower Tribunal No. 20-21229

________________

Mary Ann James de Holguin, 

Appellant,

vs.

Camila Holguin Godin, et al.,

Appellees. 

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Samantha Ruiz Cohen, Judge.

Holland & Knight LLP, Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., and Rebecca M.

Plasencia, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Jamie B. Wasserman (Fort Lauderdale);

Shutts & Bowen LLP, Steven M. Ebner and Julissa Rodriguez, for appellees. 

Before HENDON, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. 

GORDO, J. 

Mary Ann James de Holguin, the decedent’s wife, (the “Wife”) appeals 

an order dismissing her amended complaint against the decedent’s daughter 
2

Camila Holguin Godin (the “Daughter”), as an individual and representative 

of the estate of Rodrigo Holguin Lourido (the “Decedent”), and Majaroho 

LLC, for forum non conveniens. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 

9.130(a)(3)(C)(viii). Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s ruling, we 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Wife and the Decedent were in a long-term marriage and 

remained married until his death on December 29, 2019. The Decedent had 

three children from a prior marriage, including the Daughter. The couple

were residents of Colombia who lived on their property in Florida for a few 

months of the year. During the course of the marriage the Wife and 

Decedent entered into multiple agreements regarding the dispensation of 

their property, including a “Memorandum of Understanding” (“MOU”). The 

MOU, which is written in Spanish, was signed and executed at the office of 

Holland & Knight in Bogota, Colombia on October 7, 2019. The MOU deals

primarily with the couple’s Colombian assets and unequivocally mandates 

its terms are governed by Colombian law.

In June 2020, the Daughter commenced a probate proceeding in 

Miami-Dade. The Daughter’s petition noted there was already ongoing 

probate proceedings in Colombia. The Wife filed objections to the Florida 
3

proceedings. Five months later, the Wife filed the instant independent 

creditor action, raising claims against the Daughter and Majaroho relating to 

the MOU. The Daughter and Majaroho moved to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens arguing Colombia was the more appropriate forum and the 

ongoing probate case in Colombia centered on many of the same issues 

raised by the pleadings filed in this action. 

The trial court held a full evidentiary hearing and—after applying the 

factors set forth in Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 94 (Fla. 

1996)—granted the motion to dismiss finding that Colombia was the 

appropriate forum for these claims and dismissal was warranted under forum 

non conveniens. This appeal followed. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss based on 

forum non conveniens grounds is “subject to review for abuse of discretion.” 

Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 94. “[T]he trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with 

a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be 

disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly 

erroneous.” Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288, 

290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
4

In Kinney, the Florida Supreme Court set forth the four-step test to 

address forum non conveniens challenges. See Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 90 

(quoting Pain v. United Techs. Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 784–85 (D.C. Cir.

1980)). This test was later codified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

1.061(a).

1

 The burden of persuasion for each factor is on the moving party. 

See Cardoso v. FPB Bank, 879 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Here, the trial court properly addressed all four Kinney factors, and we 

find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the Daughter 

and Majaroho provided sufficient competent, substantial evidence to show 

that Colombia was an adequate alternative forum. See Abeid-Saba v. 

1 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061 provides:

(a) Grounds for Dismissal. An action may be 

dismissed on the ground that a satisfactory remedy 

may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction 

other than Florida when:

(1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate 

forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the 

whole case, including all of the parties;

(2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of 

private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in 

the balance a strong presumption against disturbing 

plaintiffs’ initial forum choice;

(3) if the balance of private interests is at or near 

equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public 

interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate 

forum; and

(4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate 

their suit in the alternate forum without undue 

inconvenience or prejudice.
5

Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“An alternative 

forum is adequate if it provides for litigation of the subject matter of the 

dispute and potentially offers redress for plaintiffs’ injuries.” (quoting King v. 

Cessna Aircraft Co., 562 F.3d 1374, 1382 (11th Cir. 2009)); GLF Constr. 

Corp. v. Credinform Int’l, S.A., 225 So. 3d 377, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

(finding no abuse of discretion where “review of the record, including the 

transcript of the hearing, establishes that the trial court conducted a proper, 

adequate analysis” of the Kinney factors). 

Affirmed.