Court Opinion

ID: 9397077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:04:33.521833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.232415
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                          GUILLERMO HUETE,
                               Appellant,

                                     v.

                       THELMA HUETE-SIERRA,
                             Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-1843

                              [May 24, 2023]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach  County;    Maxine    Cheesman,       Judge;   L.T.    Case    No.
502019DR010326MB.

  Casey M. Reiter of Casey Reiter Appeals, P.A., Loxahatchee, for
appellant.

  Nicole Nicolette Mace and Curt Sanchez of The Law Offices of Curt
Sanchez, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   Appellant Guillermo Huete appeals the trial court’s final judgment of
dissolution of marriage and relocation. The trial court granted Appellee
Thelma Huete-Sierra’s petition for relocation with the parties’ daughter
and awarded Appellee durational alimony.

   We affirm the trial court’s determinations regarding both relocation and
durational alimony. Appellant submitted only a partial trial transcript.
See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“The most
salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not
the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”).

   However, the trial court’s order is facially inconsistent with respect to
how much Appellant owes in retroactive child support, how much
Appellant must pay monthly in retroactive child support, and whether
Appellant is required to pay retroactive alimony.          The trial court
equivocated on each of these issues. For example, one portion of the order
states that Appellant was required to pay retroactive alimony, whereas
another portion states that Appellant is not required to pay retroactive
alimony. We remand these three issues to the trial court to clarify its
rulings and issue an amended judgment that is consistent with the record.
See Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So. 3d 867, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

                           *         *        *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     2