A trial court can compel sale of marital property that a dissolution judgment already ordered sold, at least on the facts of one Miami-Dade case: the Third District Court of Appeal found no reversible error in doing so. The court ruled on October 28, 2026, in Alvarez v. Cueto, No. 3D2024-2310, in an appeal from an order compelling the sale after the former husband died. Judge Lindsey wrote the opinion. Judges Gordo and Gooden were on the panel. The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
The judgment
A 2022 final judgment of dissolution ordered the sale of four marital properties within specified timeframes. They included real property in Miami and an assisted living facility business on it. For the property, the judgment provided that net proceeds after liabilities, brokers’ fees and closing costs would be split equally. The judgment also stated that the court “retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order.”
The former husband’s death
The former husband died several months later. Cueto, as personal representative of his estate, was substituted as a party because most of the assets had not yet been distributed. The trial court then entered an enforcement order setting procedures for the sales. It allowed the former wife, Alvarez, to buy the property and business for $600,000, and otherwise set listing prices, timeframes and a realtor.
Motion to compel sale of marital property
Alvarez made no offer in time, and the properties were listed. A buyer signed purchase agreements in January 2024, but nearly a year later the sales had not closed. The opinion says Alvarez allowed the mortgage on the property to become delinquent, and that by October 2024 the lender had begun foreclosure, claiming no payments since May 2024. The buyer was willing to buy the property to avoid foreclosure even though the business sale was not final. Cueto filed an urgent motion to compel sale. After a hearing, the trial court ordered the immediate sale of the property to preserve value and prevent foreclosure, and later denied reconsideration in an unelaborated order.
The holding
After reviewing the record, “limited specifically to the facts of this case,” the court found no reversible error in compelling the sale of the property the dissolution judgment already mandated. It did not discuss Alvarez’s individual arguments, which the opinion says were numerous.
Attorney’s fees
The trial court’s ruling on fees and costs decided only entitlement and set no amount. The Third DCA said it lacked jurisdiction over that part and dismissed it as premature. A footnote says neither party raised the point, but the court has an independent duty to determine jurisdiction.
What this does and does not mean
The affirmance is limited to the facts of the case, and the opinion gives almost no reasoning for it. A footnote says the record contains no transcript of either hearing. The order under review concerned the property, and the opinion does not say what happened with the business or the other properties the judgment covered. The fee ruling was not reviewed on the merits. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is decided.
Related decisions: Can separate money become marital when deposited in a joint account? Yes, the Second DCA says Does the federal 25% garnishment cap apply to alimony from an incorporated settlement agreement? No, the Fourth DCA says
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Alvarez v. Cueto, No. 3D2024-2310 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 28, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.