Jeffery M. Stamler v. Leah M. Stamler

Tampa, Florida family law lawyers represented the parties in a dissolution of marriage with children.



MoreLaw was created to help people find experienced lawyers to represent them in the more than 3,144 counties across the United States. Click the link above to see a list of lawyers ready and willing to represent you if you have a legal problem and need help.





The parties have two minor children and divorced in 2021 pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the marital settlement agreement at issue in this appeal. Section 4.3 of the agreement provides as follows:



4.3. In addition to the foregoing and for so long as Husband has a child support obligation, Husband shall be 100% responsible for various child related expenses as further described below. The parties acknowledge that Wife will make many of these purchases for the minor children which Husband is ultimately responsible. Wife will establish one credit card in her name that will be used exclusively for the below child related expenses. On a monthly basis, Wife will provide Husband the credit card statement used for the children's expenses. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of Wife's credit card statement, Husband shall reimburse Wife 100% of the following child-related expenses for the minor children: ....



Section 4.3 then lists the "child-related expenses" for which Former Husband is responsible, such as the children's school tuition, tutoring costs, and cellular phone expenses. Pursuant to section 4.3, Former Wife obtained an "Athleta MasterCard" for her payment of the reimbursable child-related expenses.



In March 2023, Former Wife filed a motion for contempt and enforcement, alleging that Former Husband stopped reimbursing her for the minor children's expenses as of April 2022. She scheduled a one-hour hearing on the motion. According to Former Wife's testimony.



* * *



The trial court later issued a written order granting Former Wife's request for enforcement but denying her request for contempt. The trial court reasoned that it was "clear" Former Husband was responsible to pay 100% of the child-related expenses. The trial court explained that it "received evidence that the . . . remaining amount due as of the date of the hearing is $15,793.13" and that there was "no evidence that the expenses incurred were unreasonable or not in compliance with the" agreement, so it ordered Former Husband to pay that amount to Former Wife.



* * *



Legal issue Did the trial court violate procedural due process by not allowing one party to present evidence related to reimbursement of child expenses under a marital settlement agreement?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The case involves an appeal concerning the trial court's interpretation of a marital settlement agreement, specifically whether the Former Husband was required to reimburse the Former Wife for child-related expenses paid through means other than the designated Athleta MasterCard.



FAMILY LAW. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. The court addressed a procedural due process issue where the Former Husband was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence during a hearing, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings to allow full presentation of evidence.



Key Phrases Procedural due process rights. Marital settlement agreement. Child-related expenses. Reimbursement obligation. Payment methods.

Reversed