Conway v. Conway
111 So. 3d 925
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Former Wife seeks enforcement of an MSA incorporated into the Final Judgment of Dissolution, mandating Former Husband pay 30% of 2004 bonuses and 20% of bonuses thereafter while alimony persists.
- Dispute centers on whether 'bonus' and 'receives' are to be measured by gross pre‑tax amounts or net after tax amounts.
- Trial court awarded Former Wife $31,850.85 in additional alimony but did not award prejudgment interest or attorney’s fees.
- Court held latent ambiguity existed; parol evidence was admitted to determine original intent, and the trial court found Former Wife’s share deducted from net bonuses.
- Record showed underpayment totaling $28,140.85 plus a $65,000 2006 bonus from which $8,710 should have been paid, totaling $81,850.85, which the trial court ordered paid.
- MSA Paragraph 8.02 provides prevailing party attorney’s fees; party prevailing on significant issues should recover fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSA interpretation of bonus terms | Former Wife: gross bonuses and gross receipt; Former Husband: net/after‑tax bonuses. | Bonuses are net amounts actually received by Husband. | Trial court's net-bonus construction adopted; affirm interpretation. |
| Prejudgment interest on additional alimony | Former Wife entitled to prejudgment interest. | No prejudgment interest awarded. | Trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest; must award. |
| Attorney’s fees for enforcing the MSA | Former Wife should recover prevailing party fees under the MSA. | Fees not recoverable under contract. | Former Wife prevailed on the significant issue; trial court erred in denying fees; remand for calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (de novo contract interpretation; latent ambiguity recognized)
- Duval Motors Co. v. Rogers, 73 So.3d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (latent ambiguity and parol evidence consideration)
- Southern Crane Rentals, Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (silence on rights can create latent ambiguity)
- Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 793 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (parol evidence to explain ambiguous terms)
- Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. SG/SC, Ltd., 772 So.2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (parol evidence and intent determination)
- Hunter v. State, 87 So.3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (competent substantial evidence standard for findings)
- Ulander v. Ulander, 824 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (support arrearage becomes vested; prejudgment interest context)
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1992) (prevailing party concept for fees)
- Bessey v. Difilippo, 951 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (fees recoverable when contract provides)
- Tierra Holdings, Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank, 78 So.3d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (precedent on prevailing party fees under contract)
- Russell v. Gill, 715 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (considering parties' subsequent acts and circumstances)
- Ulander v. Ulander, 824 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (vested rights and prejudgment interest context)