Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
It is anticipated that after a divorce, spouses will move on to new relationships. Most will agree it is in the best interest of the children involved that the spouses and their significant others all get along when it comes to issues that involve the children. In the case Godwin v. Godwin, 4D18-2228 (Fla. 4th DCA May 15, 2019), a main point of contention surrounded the former husband’s girlfriend’s presence at the children’s doctor’s appointments.
The parties entered multiple stipulations specifying their rights and obligations concerning their children. Notably, they agreed, “The parent with whom the children are enjoying timesharing, or that parent's designee, shall be responsible to transport the children to their activities or appointments. In the event the parent, or that parent's designee, enjoying timesharing is not able to transport the children to the [sic] their activities or appointments, the other parent (or his/her designee) shall be permitted to transport the children.” Additionally, the parties included a provision in their agreement which entitled a party to attorneys’ fees if that party successfully sought enforcement of the agreement.
Both parties filed cross motions for contempt. The former husband alleged the former husband violated the agreement by sending him messages unrelated to the children and refusing to transport the children to their extracurricular activities or allowing him to do so. The former wife alleged the former husband was allowing his girlfriend to sit in on the children’s doctor appointments and make healthcare decisions for them in her place. Ultimately, the court found the former wife in contempt of the communication provision and found the former husband in contempt for allowing his girlfriend to take action beyond transporting the children to their appointments. The court denied both parties’ requests for attorneys’ fees.
The former husband appealed, holding there was no provision of their agreement that did not allow his girlfriend to attend appointments. The appellate court agreed with him and reversed the finding of contempt, holding “In this case, the trial court found the Former Husband to be in contempt ‘for having his significant other in attendance at the parties' daughter's . . . doctor's appointment and acting beyond transport.’ However, the Former Husband correctly points out that nowhere in the final judgment or the orders adopting the parties' subsequent stipulations was the Former Husband precluded from allowing his significant other to attend medical appointments. Additionally, the language of subsection (b) of the Fourth Stipulation does not state that the significant other's participation is limited to transport. Nor does it state that the Former Husband must prevent his significant other from attending or ensuring her contact with the children is limited to transporting them to their appointments. Thus, the Former Husband is correct that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt for having his significant other at his daughter's doctor's appointment and acting beyond transport. Furthermore, to the extent the trial court based its finding of contempt upon the implication that the significant other's activities were so limited, such would also have been erroneous, where, as discussed above, implied or inherent provisions of a final judgment cannot serve as a basis for an order of contempt.”
Next, the former husband took issue with the court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees despite its finding of contempt against the former wife. On this issue, the appellate court also agreed with the former husband holding, “Because the plain language of the Second Stipulation clearly and unambiguously provided for an award of attorney's fees to the party required to file a court action to enforce the provisions of the stipulation, we determine the trial court erred in denying the Former Husband's request for attorney's fees. Presumably, the trial court may have denied both parties' requests for fees because it found each to be in contempt of different orders. However, given the above-quoted language coupled with the similar, but more general terms of the MSA and Fourth Stipulation, we reverse the trial court's denial of Former Husband's request for attorney's fees and costs.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer today to determine your rights and obligations under your Florida marital settlement agreement.