Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support
Sometimes, the wording of a Florida marital settlement agreement can be ambiguous or open to different interpretations. When this happens, the court may be tasked with deciding what the parties meant by specific phrases in the agreement. This was an issue in the case Stamler v. Stamler, 2D2023-2339 (Fla. 2d DCA April 11, 2025).
In this post-judgment divorce case, the former wife sought to have the former husband held in contempt for his failure to pay for child-related expenses as agreed in their marital settlement agreement. The agreement stated as follows:
4.3. In addition to the foregoing and for so long as Husband has a child support obligation, Husband shall be 100% responsible for various child related expenses as further described below. The parties acknowledge that Wife will make many of these purchases for the minor children which Husband is ultimately responsible. Wife will establish one credit card in her name that will be used exclusively for the below child related expenses. On a monthly basis, Wife will provide Husband the credit card statement used for the children's expenses. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of Wife's credit card statement, Husband shall reimburse Wife 100% of the following child-related expenses for the minor children: . . . .
The former husband argued that because the former wife used means other than the credit card to pay the expenses, she was not entitled to reimbursement under the agreement because the agreement provided that only the credit card could be used. The trial court disagreed, but denied the former wife’s motion for contempt and instead granted it as to enforcement. This was done over the former husband’s objection since the time allotted for the hearing had expired and the judge did not allow the former husband to testify. The former husband appealed.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on enforcement. It held the provision was clear that the former husband was responsible for “100%” of the children’s expenses and reasoned “It says the card will be used exclusively for child-related expenses. In other words, the word ‘exclusively’ indicates that Former Wife's use of the credit card will be used for child-related expenses to the exclusion of other expenses— not that the credit card will be used to pay for all child-related expenses to the exclusion of other means of payment.”
The court, however, reversed as it relates to the former husband’s inability to testify at the hearing. It held “Former Husband is correct, however, that the trial court violated his procedural due process right to be heard when it precluded him from testifying or presenting evidence regarding which expenses did or did not constitute reimbursable child-related expenses and whether he had already reimbursed Former Wife for some of the expenses that the trial court ordered him to pay. [. . .] Though the trial court's adherence to the one-hour time limitation set for the hearing is understandable, due process required that the trial court complete the hearing and allow Former Husband the opportunity to present evidence on the disputed factual issue of what he had already reimbursed and what he had not.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.