Wilcoxon v. Moller, 132 So. 3d 281

Former Wife and Former Husband, married in 1998 and divorced in 2009, executed an MSA incorporating a 50/50 TSA for time-sharing and responsibilities for transportation to activities.
MSA required Former Husband to maintain hospital/medical insurance for children and Former Wife to maintain dental/vision insurance, with costs shared equally; prevailing party fees were available for enforcement.
Parties added an agreement to use Our Family Wizard (OFW) or SMS for co-parenting communications; there were restrictions on the current husband’s presence at children’s activities.
After more than two years, Former Husband sought contempt and sanctions alleging Former Wife withheld health information, canceled OFW, limited extracurriculars, and allowed her current husband to criticize him in front of the children.
Magistrate recommended several compliance steps; the order was ratified by the court in November 2011. Former Husband filed a second contempt motion in 2012 alleging continued noncompliance.
Trial court found Former Wife in contempt and modified the TSA, ordered health insurance changes, and awarded sanctions/fees; the appellate court reversed in part, finding multiple errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt findings were proper	Moller argues WIlcoxon violated OFW, insurance proofs, activity participation, and current husband presence per the order.	Wilcoxon contends order lacked explicit duties and fear of noncompliance with unclear directives prevented contempt.	Contempt order defective; cannot base on unclear duties; reverse contempt portion.
Modification of time-sharing as a sanction	Modification was warranted to ensure participation in activities.	No substantial, material, unanticipated change in circumstances; sanction unsupported.	Trial court erred in modifying TSA due to lack of substantial change in circumstances.
Health-care obligations under the MSA	Former Husband should continue hospital/medical insurance; cost-sharing remains.	Court improperly ordered Husband to maintain dental/vision coverage; changed terms not supported by clear language or changed circumstances.	Court erred by altering health-care duties contrary to unambiguous MSA terms; no changed circumstances shown.
Attorney’s fees/sanctions	Fees justified for contempt enforcement and deposition failure.	Fees tied to reversed contempt; some fees still support deposition sanctions under Rule 1.380(d).	Affirm deposition-related fees; reverse others; remand for amended judgment.

DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (appellate review of contempt standard; abuse of discretion or fundamental error)
Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (contumacy requires explicit order; cannot punish for inaction not commanded)
Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985) (purge and feasibility of purge in civil contempt)
Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977) (purge requirements and purge feasibility)
Marcus v. Marcus, 902 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (contempt requires clear directive; cannot read into orders)
Harris v. Hampton, 70 So.3d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (need express finding of ability to comply before contempt)
Bank of N.Y. v. Moorings at Edgewater Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 79 So.3d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (indirect criminal contempt procedures; 3.840 compliance)
Baker v. Green, 732 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (indirect criminal contempt procedural safeguards)
Lo v. Lo, 878 So.2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (purge provision requirement in contempt orders)
Ragle v. Ragle, 82 So.3d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (statutory best-interest standard and modification standards)