Court Opinion

ID: 9369292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:03:58.575621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.528112
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                         STEPHEN E. WALKER,
                             Appellants,

                                     v.

                           ROBYN WALLACE,
                              Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-1665

                            [February 8, 2023]

  Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T.
Case No. 502021DR001367XXXXNB.

   Stephen E. Walker, Jupiter, pro se.

  John F. Schutz of John F. Schutz, PL, Palm Beach Gardens, for
appellee.

PER CURIAM.

   The former husband appeals an order holding him in contempt for
violating the time-sharing provisions of the marital settlement agreement
incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He
challenges the court’s underlying interpretation of the terms of the marital
settlement agreement. However, a person found in contempt cannot
challenge the contempt order on the ground that the underlying order was
legally erroneous. See Abdo v. Abdo, 320 So. 3d 791, 794 (Fla. 2d DCA
2021) (noting “[p]roceedings charging contempt for failure to obey an order
cannot be used as a method of reviewing the question of the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain the original action”); Cummings v. Cummings, 723
So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating “failure to comply with a court
order may be addressed by the court even if the order is erroneous,
provided the court is acting within its jurisdiction”).

   Even if we considered the meaning of the marital settlement agreement,
we would agree with the trial court’s determination in multiple orders that
the agreement does set forth a time-sharing schedule to be followed. The
agreement allows for its modification once the former husband ceases
traveling for work, but modification of the agreement requires a court
order, 1 which the former husband has never sought. We conclude on this
record that the court did not err in its order of contempt.

    Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

                               *          *          *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 The agreement provided a time schedule to be followed while the husband
travelled for business. It states that “it is in the best interests of the children” to
spend more time with the former husband and provides “no change in
circumstances will need to be shown to effectuate and/or obtain an Order which
results in an increase in the children’s time with the Husband.”

                                          2