Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
When a party does not meet his or her obligations under a Florida marital settlement agreement, he or she may be held in contempt of court or face enforcement proceedings. Before a party can be held in contempt, the court must determine that the terms of an order are clear and definite so as to put both parties on notice of what they are required to do (or not do). This was an issue in the case Kovic v. Kovic, 4D21-55 (Fla. 4th DCA January 5, 2022).
The parties entered a marital settlement agreement as part of their divorce case in which they agreed that the former wife would receive a salary from a jointly owned business plus 50% of shareholder distributions until the corporation was sold. Thereafter she would receive permanent alimony. The former wife filed multiple motions for contempt alleging the former husband was not abiding by the agreement. Specifically she alleged he was interfering with the distributions she was to receive and he was refusing to reimburse her for expenses she incurred on behalf of the business which had been historically reimbursed and for which the former husband was reimbursing himself. The trial court found the former husband in contempt and ordered him to reimburse the former wife, as well as pay her the distributions to which she was entitled. The former was also awarded attorney’s fees and costs. The former husband appealed.
The former husband argued there was nothing in the parties’ agreement or the final judgment which obligated him to reimburse the former wife for expenses incurred on behalf of the business. Therefore it was improper to hold him in contempt of a provision that did not exist in the order at issue. The appellate court agreed, holding “The court’s finding that ‘since Former Wife is entitled to share equally in the salaries, bonuses and distributions of the business, necessarily included is her entitlement to the same reimbursements as Former Husband’ was not a finding that could support an award of contempt. This was a provision that the court implied into the final judgment, not an express provision on which a contempt order could be based. See Oasis, 138 So. 3d at 1221. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that former wife would be entitled to reimbursement for expenses when she no longer engaged in the operation of the business. The court erred in holding former husband in contempt for these expenses in the amount of $7,613.67. On remand, this amount should be deducted from the money judgment against former husband.”
The court next considered the former husband’s contention “that the court erred in assessing against him additional distributions from Mattson Holding Company because of his unilateral reduction in rent paid by National Fence to Mattson, which reduced the income and thus the distributions to former wife.” The appellate court held “We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. There was an express order to pay former wife her share of the income from Mattson. Former husband violated that order by reducing the regular income from National Fence, which the court found he distributed to himself. Former husband should not be allowed to intentionally violate the express order by unilaterally deciding to reduce the rent to Mattson and pocketing that withheld rental income. The inclusion of this distribution in the money judgment against former husband was not an abuse of discretion.”
As to the attorney’s fees, the appellate court found there were paralegal expenses and costs that were not discussed at the hearing which were included in the award of fees and costs to the former wife. These amounts were reversed since they were not supported by evidence. The case was remanded for the trial court to subtract the attorney’s fee award and the reimbursements ordered to the former wife.
Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.