ROBERT WRIEDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE WRIEDEN, 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.
A former husband appeals an order finding him in civil contempt and requiring him to pay rent obligations to his former wife. The appellate court affirms the contempt finding and other orders but reverses the portion requiring him to pay rent at a location not specified in the Marital Settlement Agreement.
The court reversed the portion of the order requiring payment of rent at the second location, holding that the MSA is unambiguous in limiting the former husband's obligation to one half of the rent at only the specifically identified location. The court affirmed the contempt finding and other aspects of the lower court's order.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for continuance when the moving party fails to demonstrate good cause.
[2] A marital settlement agreement's unambiguous terms must be interpreted from the four corners of the document.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where the terms of a marital settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous, the parties' intent must be gleaned from the four corners of the document. It is only when a term in a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear that the trial court may consider extrinsic evidence as well as the parties' interpretation of the contract to explain or clarify the language.”
Establishes the standard for interpreting marital settlement agreements and when extrinsic evidence may be considered
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Marital Settlement Agreement required the former husband to share equally in rent for the former wife's residence at a specific address. During th…
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 Enforcement Of Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband appeals an order granting the former wife’s motion for civil contempt and enforcement, and overruling his exceptions to the magistrate’s report. He argues the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate’s recommendations to: (1) deny his motion for continuance; (2) order him to pay his former wife’s rent at a location other than the one identified in the Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”); and (3) give the wife exclusive possession of the marital home. We find no error in issues one and three, but reverse on issue two.
The MSA required the former husband to share equally in the “rent on the [former wife’s] residence located at” a specific address. At the hearing, the former wife produced evidence showing she resided at two different locations during the relevant period, including the one identified in the MSA. She provided three different leases, one of which was for the location identified in the MSA, and testified to the rent expense at both locations. The magistrate recommended that the former husband pay one half of the rent at both of the locations.
The former husband filed an exception to this recommendation, arguing that the MSA limited his obligation to pay one half of the rent for the first location only. The trial court overruled his exception, and ordered him to pay rent in the amount of $31,325, covering one half of the rent at both of the locations. From this order, the former husband appeals.
As with any contract, “where the terms of a marital settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous, the parties’ intent must be gleaned from the four corners of the document. It is only when a term in a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear that the trial court may consider extrinsic evidence as well as the parties’ interpretation of the contract to explain or clarify the language.”
Jones v. Treasure, 984 So.2d 634, 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).
Because the MSA is unambiguous in requiring the former husband to pay one half of the rent at only one location, the trial court erred when it accepted the magistrate’s recommendation that the former husband pay one half of the rent for the other location. We therefore reverse and remand the case for the trial court to reduce the amount owed by the former husband to the amount of his unpaid share of rent for the specific location listed in the MSA. We find no error in the other issues raised.
Affirmed in part; Reversed in part.
MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Plemondon v. Alberto Fernandez, M.D., 699 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Jones v. Treasure, 984 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)