Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementappealhearingtrialmotionwill
settlementappealwill

Related Cases

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A.3d 1267, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,028
View Case »
Hatch v. Davis, 102 P.3d 774, 511 Utah Adv. Rep. 16, 2004 UT App 378
View Case »
Chapman v. Bearfield, 207 S.W.3d 736
View Case »
Lu v. United States, 921 F.3d 850, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3514, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3221
View Case »
Popejoy v. Steinle, 820 P.2d 545
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wolf v. Wolf, 296 So.3d 479, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D622

Facts

The parties, Lisa L. Wolf (Former Wife) and Todd O. Wolf (Former Husband), entered into a Mediated Marital Settlement Agreement and a Parenting Plan incorporated into their 2011 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The Former Husband alleged that the Former Wife had denied him time-sharing since December 2014, prompting him to file a motion for contempt in 2015. After a series of hearings, the trial court found the Former Wife in contempt for refusing to participate in family therapy but made other findings that were later deemed unsupported by evidence.

The parties entered into a Mediated Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and a Parenting Plan that were incorporated into the 2011 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (the Final Judgment).

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding the Former Wife in contempt for failing to comply with the parenting plan and in modifying the parenting time without sufficient evidence?

The Former Wife raises four issues on appeal.

Rule

A court may find a party in contempt for willfully failing to comply with a clear and precise court order, and any modification of a parenting plan must be based on a substantial change in circumstances and the best interests of the child.

A violation of section 61.13(4) “may be punished by contempt of court or other remedies as the court deems appropriate.”

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented at the hearing and determined that while the Former Wife was in contempt for refusing to participate in family therapy, the other findings of contempt lacked competent, substantial evidence. The court noted that the trial court's modifications to the parenting plan were made without the necessary legal basis, including a failure to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or the child's best interests.

We conclude that the Former Husband presented competent, substantial evidence that the Former Wife willingly refused to participate in therapy and affirm the finding of contempt on this basis.

Conclusion

The District Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in modifying the parenting plan.

We affirm the Order regarding the finding of contempt for the Former Wife's refusal to participate in the ordered family therapy and reverse the other two findings of contempt based on a lack of competent, substantial evidence.

Who won?

The Former Husband prevailed in part as the court affirmed the finding of contempt regarding the Former Wife's refusal to participate in therapy, but he did not prevail on the other contempt findings or the modification of the parenting plan.

The District Court of Appeal, Silberman, J., held that: 1 evidence did not support portion of order awarding make-up time-sharing and modifying the parenting plan; 2 stipulations by former husband and former wife supported other portions of the Circuit Court's order.

You must be