MARIO ANDRES MORENO, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA LUCIA MORENO, N/K/A MARTHA LUCIA SOCARRAS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for civil contempt because the agreed order contained mandatory language regarding non-harassment and disparagement.
[1] A trial court is without discretion to deny a motion for civil contempt when the moving party demonstrates a clear violation of a mandatory court order.
[2] An agreed order enjoining parties from making disparaging statements to third parties is enforceable through civil contempt proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband filed a motion for civil contempt against his former wife, alleging she violated a prior agreed order enjoining harassment and disp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agreed Order cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband, Mario Andres Moreno, appeals from a post-dissolution order denying his motion for civil contempt against his former wife, Martha Lucia Socarras. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Moreno and Socarras were divorced by final judgment of dissolution of marriage in July 2002. Subsequently, in February 2003, the trial court entered an agreed order for non-harassment, which stated, in part, that each party was “enjoined from harassing and making disparaging statements against the [other] to the parties’ minor children, employers and other third parties.” The agreed order also provided that “the parties understand that violation of this paragraph shall subject the offending party to sanctions being imposed upon them by the Court.”
It is undisputed that in October 2009, Socarras released a book purportedly telling the “real story” of the break-up of the parties’ marriage. Between August and September of 2009, she also appeared on television shows and granted interviews to publications, all with respect to the book. As a result, Moreno filed a motion for civil contempt, seeking to have Socarras held in contempt because she had “blatantly violated the Court’s orders and has ignored this Court’s authority.” After an eviden-tiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued.
We conclude that given the mandatory language contained in the agreed order, the trial court was without discretion to deny the motion for civil contempt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to find Socar-ras in contempt of the agreed order, and for the imposition of sanctions.1
Reversed and remanded.