KELLY LETT

v.

JEREMY LETT

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-1416 LT Case No. 2014-DR-030265 _____________________________

KELLY LETT,

Appellant,

v.

JEREMY LETT,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Jigisa Patel-Dookhoo, Judge.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris Appellate Law Office, Mims, for Appellant.

Jeremy Lett, Palm Bay, pro se.

April 4, 2025

SOUD, J.

In this long-enduring divorce case with a tortured history of animus, judicial findings of obstinance, and an established record of one parent’s conduct adverse to the interest of three children, Appellant Kelly Lett appeals the trial court’s order finding her in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the parenting plan entered in the underlying final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm in part the trial court’s

I.

After their marriage in 2005, Kelly Lett and Jeremy Lett were divorced in October 2015. Pertinent here, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage established a parenting plan, which provided for shared parental responsibility and 50-50 timesharing for each parent with their three minor children. In the years since, Jeremy Lett has filed numerous motions for contempt, seeking enforcement of the parenting plan and alleging that Kelly Lett has frustrated his timesharing with the children. Since 2015, several orders have been entered by different presiding judges finding Kelly Lett in contempt of court for her persistent refusal to honor the parenting plan. Most recently, Jeremy Lett filed his “Emergency Motion for Contempt and Enforcement.” Relevant to the issues before us, the motion requested, inter alia: (1) the trial court find Kelly Lett in willful contempt; (2) provide Jeremy Lett uninterrupted make-up timesharing; (3) award him the attorney’s fees incurred in seeking contempt and enforcement; and as is customary, (4) “any further relief the trial court deemed appropriate.” No request for any sort of fine or other punitive sanction against Kelly Lett was made. In its amended order granting the motion, the trial court found Kelly Lett in willful contempt of court for her “continued behavior, and disregard of the parenting plan,” as well as for her “instigating conflict” and “[unilateral interference] with [Jeremy Lett’s] timesharing.” As requested in the motion, the trial court provided considerable make-up timesharing with the middle child1

1 By the time the trial court was able to conclude the hearing on Jeremy Lett’s emergency motion and render the order on appeal, the oldest child had turned 18 years old. As a result, the trial court determined it no longer had jurisdiction over that child.

Additionally, the trial court expressly declined to address make-up timesharing for the youngest child. As a result, make-up timesharing was ordered for Jeremy Lett with the middle of the three children only.² Jeremy Lett’s motion was filed after Kelly Lett filed her “Verified Urgent Motion to Suspend Timesharing and Motion for Child Testimony,” wherein she alleged a substantial disagreement between Jeremy Lett and the two older children. Jeremy Lett disputed the nature and severity of the alleged dispute. Kelly Lett’s motion was ultimately denied by the trial court. The trial court further determined that Jeremy Lett’s request for attorney’s fees in defending against Kelly Lett’s motion would be heard at the time his pending emergency motion giving rise to this appeal was heard. Ultimately, the trial court awarded Jeremy Lett $11,599.45 for fees incurred in defending against Kelly Lett’s motion and $8,094.01 for fees incurred in support of his emergency motion for contempt and enforcement.³ After Kelly Lett filed her initial brief, Jeremy Lett, who is unrepresented before this Court, did not file an answer brief.

4

II.

We review the trial court’s order granting Jeremy Lett’s contempt motion for abuse of discretion. See Eadie v. Gillis, 363 So. 3d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). The trial court’s factual findings supporting its adjudication of contempt must be based on competent substantial evidence. See Varner v. Varner, 356 So. 3d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Finally, we review de novo whether a party was afforded due process. See Babcock New Haven, LLC v. Teimouri, 392 So. 3d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).

A.

There is sufficient evidence in the record before us supporting the trial court’s findings that Kelly Lett persisted in her defiance of court orders by interfering with Jeremy Lett’s timesharing with the minor children. As a result, the trial court was well within its discretion to hold Kelly Lett in contempt and award Jeremy Lett make-up timesharing and his attorney’s fees. Addressing the $19,693.46 in attorney’s fees awarded to Jeremy Lett, Kelly Lett contends the trial court erred because it did not consider Jeremy Lett’s need for the award of fees, as required by section 61.16(1), Florida Statutes (2023). We disagree because her argument in this regard overlooks section 61.13(4)(c)2. Section 61.16(1) broadly allows a trial court “from time to time” to award attorney’s fees in “any proceeding under [Chapter 61], including enforcement and modification proceedings and appeals” after the trial court has considered “the financial resources of both parties.” § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. Importantly, the purpose of section 61.16 “is ‘to ensure that both parties have similar access to competent legal counsel.’” Haslauer v. Haslauer, 381 So. 3d 662, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (quoting Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 1997)). Under this provision, the trial court may grant fees to a requesting spouse only after the trial court has weighed the need of the party requesting fees together with the ability to pay of the party from whom fees are sought. Section 61.13(4)(c)2., however, which expressly authorizes an award of attorney’s fees and costs in cases where one parent wrongfully interferes with the timesharing of the other, provides:

B.

However, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s order that pre-emptively imposed a daily $25.00 fine for each missed day of timesharing awarded to Jeremy Lett because the trial court imposed the fine in the absence of any such request from Jeremy Lett. Due process requires that matters decided by a trial court must be raised in an appropriate motion or pleading and heard at a duly noticed hearing. See Eadie, 363 So. 3d at 1117 (citing Land Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Gulf View Townhomes, LLC, 75 So. 3d 865, 871

III.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM IN PART the trial court’s order finding Kelly Lett in contempt of court and awarding Jeremy Lett both makeup timesharing and attorney’s fees. However, because the trial court failed to afford due process to Kelly Lett as to the imposition of a fine, we REVERSE IN PART the contempt order to the extent it imposes a pre-emptive daily fine for future noncompliance with timesharing requirements. It is so ordered.

EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR, J., concur.

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________