AGUSTIN RATON, APPELLANT,
v.
BRYDIE K. WALLACE F/K/A BRYDIE K. RATON, 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.
Former Husband appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to hold Former Wife in contempt for changing their children's therapist after relocation. The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the former wife's substitution of a different therapist complied with the intent of the marital settlement agreement.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to hold Former Wife in contempt. Former Wife was complying with the intent of the MSA by continuing to provide counseling for the children, even though she substituted a different therapist.
[1] An order awarding attorney's fees with the amount to be later determined is not an appealable order.
[2] A party is not in contempt of court for changing a child's therapist when the marital settlement agreement does not specify the particular therapist and the change is mad…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree with the trial court that Former Wife was complying with the intent of the MSA by continuing to take the children for counseling.”
Establishes that the court focused on the intent of the agreement rather than strict literal compliance with the therapist's identity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marital settlement agreement specified that their children would attend counseling with Dr. Meade, whose office was located in Orange Cou…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Former Husband, Agustín Raton, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion seeking to hold Former Wife, Brydie Wallace, in contempt. Former Husband first addresses the trial court’s order finding that Former Wife was entitled to attorney’s fees. The amount of fees, however, has not yet been determined. We dismiss that portion of the appeal without consideration of the merits, because an order awarding attorney’s fees with the amount to be later determined is not an appealable order. See Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So.2d 624, 624-26 (Fla. 6th DCA 1996).
Former Husband secondly asserts that Former Wife should have been found in contempt of court based upon her changing the therapist who provides counseling to their children. The parties’ marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) specified that their children would attend counseling with Dr. Meade, whose office is located in Orange County, Florida. When Former Wife relocated the children to Merritt Island, attending therapy sessions with Dr. Meade became impractical. Former Wife thereafter made arrangements with a different therapist in Merritt Island to provide counseling services for the children. The MSA did not state that Dr. Meade was the only acceptable therapist, nor did it specify how long Dr. Meade was to be the children’s therapist. We agree with the trial court that Former Wife was complying with the intent of the MSA by continuing to take the children for counseling. Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Former Husband’s motion to hold Former Wife in contempt. See Stusch v. Jiruska, 188 So.3d 874, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Bertuglia v. Roe, 42 So.3d 285, 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
SAWAYA, BERGER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rajeev Gupta v. Shaily Gupta, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…tion to determine the amount of attorney’s fees at a later hearing. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal because an order awarding attorney’s fees without setting the amount of such fees is a non-appealable order. See Raton v. Wallace, 207 So. 3d 978, 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Raush v. 9 Raush, 680 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). As to all other issues raised on appeal, we affirm without further discussion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with instruc…
Authorities Cited
- Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- DeSILVA v. First Cmty. Bank OF Am., 42 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Stusch v. The Matter of Jennifer K. Jiruska, 188 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Bertuglia v. ROE, 42 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Deante Johnson v. State, 188 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)