MICHEL WHISSELL v. SHERRONE WHISSELL
222 So. 3d 594
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Former Husband (Michel Whissell) and Former Wife (Sherrone Whissell) divorced; appeal from Palm Beach County circuit court final judgment of dissolution.
- Trial court restricted Former Husband to supervised timesharing with the parties’ minor child, finding unsupervised contact contrary to the child’s best interests.
- The final judgment did not specify steps Former Husband must complete to obtain unsupervised timesharing.
- The parties executed a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony but providing that upon dissolution Former Husband or an employer-company would pay Former Wife $6,000 gross per month for 24 months.
- Trial court treated those contractually prescribed salary payments as durational alimony despite the alimony waiver.
- Neither party challenged the validity or enforceability of the prenuptial agreement on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment properly restricted timesharing without setting specific steps to lift the restriction | Michel argued the court should specify concrete steps or standards to reestablish unsupervised timesharing | Sherrone argued supervised timesharing was appropriate and no detailed roadmap was required | Reversed: court must set reasonably specific steps/standards for restoring unsupervised timesharing |
| Whether the contractual salary payments in the prenuptial agreement may be treated as durational alimony despite an alimony waiver | Michel argued the salary payments were outside chapter 61 and not alimony, per the parties’ intent in the prenup | Sherrone argued the payments functioned as post-dissolution support (durational alimony) | Reversed: salary payments are contractual, not court-ordered alimony; trial court erred in treating them as durational alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court must state reasonably specific requirements to remove timesharing restrictions)
- Ross v. Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (error to fail to set requirements for alleviating timesharing restrictions)
- Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005) (prenuptial agreements regarding post-dissolution support are contracts)
- Burns v. Barfield, 732 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (contracts construed to give effect to parties’ intent)
- English v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (alimony enforceable by contempt)
- Walters v. Walters, 96 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trial court may hold payor in contempt for failing to pay court-ordered alimony)