EVAN W. TURK, APPELLANT,
v.
MEREDITH H. TURK, 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 father could not be held in contempt for violating a timesharing agreement provision that did not clearly apply to the date in question.
The father was found in contempt for failing to allow the mother visitation on a school holiday, October 16, 2014, which he was scheduled to have the …
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 Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
Evan W. Turk (“the father”) timely, appeals an order finding him in contempt of court for not complying "with the timeshar-ing agreement with Meredith H. Turk (“the mother”). We agree with the father’s argument that the agreement did not require him to permit visitation on the date he allegedly violated the agreement. Therefore, we reverse.
Under a section entitled ‘Winter Break,” the timesharing agreement states that “[t]he Mother shall have the children during the time where a caregiver is needed if she is not working,” and the regular schedule will be in place otherwise. The children had the day off from school on October 16, 2014, a day on which the father was otherwise scheduled to have the children. Although the father previously indicated to the mother in an e-mail that he would drop off the children ‘with her that day, he apparently changed his mind and stayed with the children on October 16th.
The mother then filed a motion for contempt alleging that the father knowingly and intentionally withheld the children from her on October 16, 2014 in violation of the section of the agreement. The trial court granted her motion and issued the order, that is now on review.
On appeal, the father argues that the timesharing provision at issue did not apply to the date in question because a reasonable interpretation of “Winter Break” does not include one single day in October in which the children had no school.
We agree with the father’s interpretation of the agreement, and because a person cannot be held in contempt for failure to comply with something that a judicial order does not say, we reverse. See Stusch v. Jiruska, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D129, 188 So.3d 874, 2016 WL 64796 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016) (“‘[A] jqdge cannot base contempt upon noncompliance with something an order does not say.’ ” (quoting Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Farmer, J., concurring))).
Reversed.
WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. HOA Rescue Fund, LLC, 249 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Lopez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 207 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…orrowers assert that the trial court is precluded from fashioning the alternate remedy of entering a money judgment, presumably based on the promissory note.5 We are guided by two recent decisions of our sister court, Miller v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6 The Holt court held that the lender failed to introduce evidence that it had complied with the mortgage’s notice provision. Holt, 155 So. 3d at 507. The Holt court co…
-
Varner v. Varner (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…r’s failure to make the child available for timesharing whenever she traveled to Columbia County was not a violation of a prior court order, the court erred by holding Mother in contempt on that basis. See Fernandes, 114 So. 3d at 976; Turk v. Turk, 189 So. 3d 359, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“We agree with the father’s interpretation of the agreement, and because a person cannot be held in contempt for failure to comply with something that a judicial order does not say, we reverse.”). Mother also argues that b…
Authorities Cited
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Stusch v. The Matter of Jennifer K. Jiruska, 188 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Deante Johnson v. State, 188 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)