[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13999
March 15, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-00961-CV-JAL
FANTOME, S.A., praying for exoneration from and/or
limitation of liability,
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME RESOURCES, INC.,
WINDJAMMER BAREFOOT CRUISES, LTD.,
MICHAEL BURKE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
SARAH FREDERICK, individually and as Personal
Representative and/or Administrator of the Estate
of Emmanuel Frederick, et al.,
Claimants,
KELLY JOSEPH OLIVAS CASTELLON,
Claimants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 15, 2006)
Before DUBINA, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kelly Joseph Olivas Castellon, a minor, through her guardian ad litem
Robert L. Parks, appeals the district court’s denial of Parks’ request that all future
payments attributable to Castellon under a settlement agreement be placed in an
interest bearing account in Miami, Florida, until Castellon, who lives with her
mother in Honduras, reaches her age of majority. Parks argues that the district
court abused its discretion when it denied this request on the ground that to grant
the request would deprive Castellon’s mother of the ability to provide basic needs
for Castellon. Parks argues that the evidence does not support this finding but
indicates that Castellon’s mother was using the funds to benefit others.
We review a trial court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement for an abuse
of discretion. Brooks v. Geor. State Bd. of Elections,
59 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (11th
Cir. 1995).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Parks’ request.
The district court held that the settlement funds, which were meant to benefit
Castellon, her mother, and her grandmother, as well as pay the mother’s attorney’s
fees, should be paid directly to the mother’s Honduran counsel for distribution. In
so holding, the district court properly relied upon Honduran law (the law of the
2
minor child’s domicile), which vests in the parent the right and responsibility to
make decisions regarding what expenditures are in the best interest of the child.
See, e.g., St. John Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Wilfred,
818 F.2d 397, 400 (5th Cir.
1987) (applying the law of the minor child’s domicile to determine if a guardian ad
litem should be appointed); Tidewater Marine Towing v. Curran-Houston, Inc.,
785 F.2d 1317, 1319 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that courts typically look to the law of
the domicile in defining beneficiary rights under the Jones Act, Death on the High
Seas Act, and general maritime law). Because of this parental legal obligation, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Castellon’s mother to
receive the settlement funds attributable to Castellon because the mother had the
obligation to decide how to spend the funds in Castellon’s best interests. In
addition, Parks’ claim that the evidence indicated that others in addition to
Castellon were receiving the settlement funds does not necessitate a different result
because these others had claims that the settlement funds also covered.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3
