Case Name: Isabel GARCIA-ROQUE, Appellant, v. Ismael ROQUE-VELASCO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-09-10
Citations: 855 So. 2d 668
Docket Number: No. 3D02-835
Parties: Isabel GARCIA-ROQUE, Appellant, v. Ismael ROQUE-VELASCO, Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 855
Pages: 668–670

Head Matter:
Isabel GARCIA-ROQUE, Appellant, v. Ismael ROQUE-VELASCO, Appellee.
No. 3D02-835.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 10, 2003.
Norkin & Drucker, and Jeffrey Norkin, Miami, for appellant.
Bluestein, Wayne and Weintraub, and Karen B. Weintraub, Miami, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order granting the former husband/appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Since the former wife/appellant was seeking to enforce an oral agreement made subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage, the family division trial judge properly found lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Poling v. Tresidder, 373 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Where parties arrive at a subsequent agreement that was not a part of the trial court's final dissolution order, enforcement of that agreement cannot be obtained simply by filing a motion, but rather must be sought in a separate breach of contract action. See Paulucci v. General Dyn., 842 So.2d 797 (Fla.2003); MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Contrary to the concurring opinion's suggestion, there simply is no policy or legal basis to require a transfer under these circumstances. Moreover, since the former wife never raised the issue of transfer to the civil division below, but rather strenuously insisted the cause remain in the Family Division, it is clearly inappropriate for this Court to even consider this issue which is being raised for the first time on appeal. See Miller v. Miller, 709 So.2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co. v. State, 243 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
Affirmed.
GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ., concur.