Kane v. Sanders
17-0148 & 17-0069
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Dr. Sanders filed for dissolution in 2010; in 2011 the parties entered a mediated marital settlement agreement (MSA) and parenting plan that the trial court incorporated into the final judgment.
- The parenting plan contained a right-of-first-refusal (ROFR): if the parent entitled to access is unable to enjoy access "for whatever reason," the other parent has the right of first refusal to care for the child; the ROFR did not specify a minimum absence or detail pick-up/drop-off responsibilities.
- Postjudgment disputes arose about ROFR scope, alleged unilateral ‘‘major health decision’’ by Dr. Kane, extracurricular enrollments, alleged interference with Facetime calls, and other parenting-coordinator-related issues.
- Dr. Sanders moved for contempt, sanctions, attorney’s fees, and related relief; the trial court granted his motions (assessed fees/costs) and denied several of Dr. Kane’s cross-motions.
- This appeal consolidated two appeals: Case No. 3D17-69 (order on pending motions, including protective order) and Case No. 3D17-148 (contempt and fees). The court dismissed 3D17-69 for lack of jurisdiction and reversed/vacated the contempt order in 3D17-148.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanders) | Defendant's Argument (Kane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over appeal of non-final order denying several post-judgment motions (3D17-69) | The order should be reviewable now. | The order is non-final and not appealable. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether contempt finding supported by intentional violation of court order (general standard) | Kane intentionally violated MSA/parenting plan and ROFR; contempt appropriate. | Kane’s conduct was not intentional or the order was ambiguous; contempt improper. | Contempt requires intentional violation and a clear, definite command; here standard not met. |
| Enforceability of ROFR by contempt (scope/ambiguity) | ROFR applied broadly (even short errands); Kane violated it. | ROFR ambiguous (no minimum absence; vague "for whatever reason"); reasonable interpretation supports Kane. | ROFR ambiguous; reasonable alternative interpretation exists; cannot be enforced by contempt. |
| Other contempt allegations (denigration, Facetime interference, extracurricular enrollment, refusal to meet) | Multiple discrete violations of MSA and parenting-coordinator directives warrant contempt and fees. | Incidents were isolated, either previously agreed verbal practices, reasonable safety/health responses, or permitted conditions (third adult present); not intentional or covered by clear order. | Allegations insufficient: isolated incidents, vague provisions, or prior verbal agreements—not proper bases for contempt; contempt/recovery reversed and vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojo v. Rojo, 84 So. 3d 1259 (contempt requires intentional disobedience of a court order)
- Fore v. State, 201 So. 3d 839 (recklessness insufficient for contempt)
- M.J. v. State, 202 So. 3d 112 (order must clearly and definitely command conduct to support contempt)
- Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135 (clear and precise language required in contempt orders)
- Haas v. State, 196 So. 3d 515 (contempt cannot be based on behavior not contained in the order)
- Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883 (same principle: contempt limited to clear orders)
- Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511 (cannot sanction for contempt where directive is not clear and definite)
- Northstar Inves. & Dev., Inc. v. Pobaco, Inc., 691 So. 2d 656 (same requirement for clear directives)
- Miranda v. Miranda, 566 So. 2d 16 (order lacking a clear and definite command is not enforceable by contempt)
- S.W. Fla. Paradise Prop., Inc. v. Segelke, 111 So. 3d 268 (certiorari treatment of certain non-final orders)
- Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159 (standards for certiorari relief from interlocutory orders)