FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2022-2413

LT Case No. 2021-DR-000225

_____________________________ 

DIANA MARTINEZ, 

Appellant, 

v.

MARC MARTINEZ, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County. 

Christopher M. Sprysenski, Judge. 

Rachael Fuller, of The Family Law Firm, Altamonte Springs, 

for Appellant. 

Paul D. Shafranski, of Artemis Family Law Group, PLLC, 

Orlando, for Appellee. 

July 12, 2024

WALLIS, J.

Diana Martinez (“Appellant”) appeals a final judgment 

dissolving her marriage to Marc Martinez (“Appellee”). We affirm 

the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request to relocate to Maine 

with the parties’ minor children and its determination of equal 

timesharing as we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

consideration of the statutory factors on those issues and 
2 

competent, substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings. 

We also affirm the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ marital 

interest in a Maine lake cottage, based on competent, substantial 

evidence of valuation presented by Appellee without objection. 

Based on Appellee’s concessions of error, we reverse the trial 

court’s calculations of alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees

due to Appellee providing inaccurate information regarding his 

monthly gross income of $4,893. On remand, the trial court is 

instructed to determine the correct amount of Appellee’s monthly 

income, based on his paystubs in evidence, and then reconsider the 

alimony and child support awards using the correct amount of 

Appellee’s monthly income. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2022). 

Because Appellee failed to prove the reasonableness of attorney’s 

fees incurred, he is not permitted to argue for fees on remand. See 

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 331 So. 3d 874, 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

(“This Court has consistently held that a party must have 

presented some competent evidence of fees at the fee hearing in 

order to justify remand for another opportunity to prove fees after 

reversal.”). 

We also note Appellee’s concessions that the trial court did not 

use the stipulated values of Appellant’s Fidelity and Prudential 

401(k) accounts which deducted her nonmarital portions of 

$18,000 and $5,481, respectively, for purposes of distribution. 

Furthermore, the trial court failed to credit Appellant 50% of the 

money she spent on the mortgage and HOA fees for the marital 

home since separation for a total of $8,850.32. Finally, Appellant 

claims she is entitled to additional credits of $5,600 for a postseparation bathroom repair and $1,300.50 for children’s medical 

expenses. Appellee agreed to these amounts in the trial court and 

fails to address them on appeal. We therefore reverse the 

equitable distribution and remand for recalculation taking into 

account Appellant’s premarital amounts of $18,000 and $5,481 in 

the 401(k) accounts and a total of $15,750.82 representing 

Appellee’s share of expenses owed since the parties’ separation. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with 

instructions. 

BOATWRIGHT and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
3 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________