The Florida District Court of Appeal recently upheld a divorce ruling involving Carla Apesteguy and Maximiliano Keglevich. The court's decision, filed on April 7, 2021, addressed various aspects of their divorce, including alimony, child support, and the distribution of marital assets. This ruling affects not only the former couple but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Carla Apesteguy and Maximiliano Keglevich were married in 2013 in Argentina and moved to Miami the same year. They had two children together, both born before their marriage. The couple separated in 2015, leading to a series of legal disputes. Apesteguy filed a petition for support in August 2017, followed by a petition for dissolution of marriage three months later. Keglevich counter-petitioned for dissolution, resulting in a complex legal battle over their assets and responsibilities.
The case reached the District Court of Appeal after a three-day trial in which the trial court made several determinations regarding their marriage. The court awarded Apesteguy lump sum alimony, child support, and ruled on the equitable distribution of their assets. Apesteguy appealed the trial court's decisions, claiming that the court abused its discretion in several areas, including the denial of a continuance for the trial, asset distribution, and the award of attorney’s fees.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions in most respects. Chief Judge EMAS, along with Judges SCALES and LOBREE, noted that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding the denial of Apesteguy's motion for a continuance. The court found that Apesteguy had sufficient time to prepare her case and that the denial did not create an injustice. The court stated, "The former wife had this information (and related documentation) in her possession for at least five months," indicating that her late request for a continuance was not justified.
The court also upheld the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets, which included properties in Argentina and Key Largo, Florida. The trial court determined that these properties were not marital assets, as Keglevich had purchased them prior to the marriage or with non-marital funds. The court affirmed this decision, stating, "The record contains competent substantial evidence to support these determinations, and we find no abuse of discretion."
Regarding alimony and child support, the trial court awarded Apesteguy $12,000 in lump sum alimony and $1,000 per month in child support. The court noted that while the marriage was short, it considered the couple's lifestyle during their time together. The ruling indicated that Keglevich's declining financial situation was a factor in determining the support amounts. The appellate court found no merit in Apesteguy's claims that the trial court failed to consider their standard of living.
Apesteguy also challenged the trial court's finding that Keglevich was entitled to attorney’s fees. However, the appellate court dismissed this part of the appeal, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of this issue since it was a nonfinal order. The court concluded that Apesteguy's appeal was premature and would need to wait for a final judgment on the matter.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both parties and for future divorce cases in Florida. It reinforces the importance of timely preparation and presentation of evidence in divorce proceedings. The court's decisions on asset distribution and support obligations may serve as a reference for similar cases, particularly those involving short-term marriages and disputes over non-marital assets.
Looking ahead, Apesteguy may still appeal certain aspects of the ruling, particularly regarding the attorney’s fees, once a final judgment is issued. However, the court's affirmations of the trial court's decisions suggest a strong precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.