Harris v. Hampton
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15740
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Harris appeals a non-final contempt order following a final post-dissolution order requiring enrollment of her child in Flamingo Road Christian Academy.
- The Michigan Consent Judgment and the subsequent Florida mediation agreement did not mandate a specific school for the child.
- Mediation produced an agreed order stating the child would attend Flamingo Road and outlining pro-rata coverage for certain expenses, but it did not specify which parent must enroll or pay tuition.
- An agreed Amended Order (Nov. 14, 2007) directed Harris to immediately enroll the child at Flamingo Road for the January 2007 session, again without specifying tuition payment responsibilities.
- In 2010, Father moved for contempt claiming Harris willfully failed to enroll the child; the trial court granted contempt and ordered Harris to enroll within 15 days and to pay fees.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the contempt order lacked an express finding of Harris's ability to comply with the enrollment directive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt based on noncompliance was proper without an express ability-to-comply finding | Harris | Hampton | Not proper; no express ability-to-comply finding |
| Whether the underlying orders sufficiently directed enrollment without specifying who pays tuition | Harris | Hampton | Insufficient explicit directive; cannot support contempt |
| Whether implied terms in the agreements can support contempt | Harris | Hampton | Implied provisions cannot form basis for contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (contempt requires basis in explicit order and correctness review)
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (cannot base contempt on non-specified directives)
- Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, 433 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (need express ability to comply finding)
- State, Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Maxwell, 667 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (emphasizes express ability-to-comply finding)
- Dep't of Children & Families v. R.H., 819 So.2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (requires express ability to comply finding for contempt)
- Northstar Invs. & Dev., Inc. v. Pobaco, Inc., 691 So.2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (cases discussing standards of contempt review)
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (special concurring about orders not stating explicit directives)