Riera v. Riera, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6375

Former spouses Jorge Luis Riera (Father) and Ana Margarita Riera (Mother) entered a 1992 MSA incorporated into their dissolution judgment, obligating them to equally pay their child's college costs and to purchase a Florida Prepaid College Program.
Their adult son chose to attend George Washington University (GW) rather than a Florida public university, despite the Florida Prepaid Program and incentives to attend in-state, with Mother funding and Father opposing the larger costs.
In July 2010, Mother moved to compel enforcement of the MSA, seeking 50% of GW expenses (about $850/month), net of loans, grants, and prepaid funds.
The trial court issued an Enforcement Order requiring Father to reimburse past expenses and to pay $800/month starting October 1, 2010, finding no restriction limiting college choice but rejecting Father’s interpretation as flawed.
Mother then sought contempt; after a December 2010 hearing, the court held Father in civil contempt, sentenced him to 60 days in jail with purge conditions and potential fees.
Father appealed both orders; this court reversed the Enforcement Order, held contempt improper, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 3.d latent ambiguity governs college-choice under MSA	Mother argues clear contractual obligation to share all related costs.	Father argues the language, including Florida Prepaid, limits to Florida schools.	Latent ambiguity requires parol evidence; remand for evidentiary determination.
Whether the MSA imposes a duty to pay adult child’s private out-of-state college expenses	Mother contends obligation covers all related expenses regardless of school.	Father contends limitation to Florida/public options or prepaid program.	Ambiguity exists; need evidentiary hearing to determine intent.
Whether contempt was proper to enforce a contractual college obligation	Mother argues contempt appropriately enforces contractual duty.	Father contends contempt cannot enforce a contractual obligation to pay college expenses.	Contempt not available to enforce contract to pay adult-child college expenses.
Whether incarceration for civil contempt was proper without ability-to-purge findings	Father had not complied; purge payment could purge contempt.	Court should jail only if purge ability is present and proven.	Incarceration without present ability-to-purge findings is improper.

Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (contracts interpreted like other contracts; equal footing for interpretation)
Bacardi v. Bacardi, 386 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (contractual provisions interpreted contractually)
Hunt v. First Nat’l Bank of Tampa, 381 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (latent ambiguity permits parol evidence)
Morton v. Morton, 307 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (latent ambiguities permit extrinsic evidence)
Mac-Gray Servs., Inc. v. Savannah Assocs. of Sarasota, LLC, 915 So.2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (parol evidence permissible to interpret latent ambiguities)
Nicoletti v. Nicoletti, 901 So.2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (contempt cannot enforce contractual college obligation)
Carlton v. Carlton, 816 So.2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (contractual duty to pay adult-child expenses not enforced by contempt)
Southard v. Southard, 756 So.2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (contempt not proper vehicle to enforce contractual support after majority)
Zolonz v. Zolonz, 659 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (contempt may enforce contractual support when expressly provided)
Drisdom v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 371 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (latent ambiguity defined; extrinsic evidence permissible)
Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (contract interpretation and latent ambiguities)