THOMAS EARL HARRINGTON, III
v.
JEANNETTE MARIE POSPISHIL A/K/A JEANNETTE MARIE HARRINGTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Former Husband appeals a contempt order for failing to deliver his child's passport as required by a mediated settlement agreement and parenting plan. The trial court found he willfully refused to comply with Former Wife's reasonable request for the passport. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court properly construed the agreement and did not improperly modify it through the purge provision.
The trial court's contempt order was affirmed. The findings of fact were supported by competent, substantial evidence that Former Husband willfully refused to deliver the passport, and the trial court properly construed the settlement agreement. The purge provision did not modify the agreement or remove the reasonableness requirement but rather required strict compliance with an already-existing obligation.
[1] A purge provision in a contempt order that establishes a specific deadline for compliance does not modify or eliminate the reasonableness requirement implicit in the unde…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a mediated settlement agreement and parenting plan that addressed custody of the minor child's passport. Former Wife made a written re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Refusal To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Former Husband, challenges an order holding him in contempt for failing to deliver the subject child’s passport as required by the parties’ mediated settlement agreement and parenting plan. The trial court’s rulings and findings of fact were supported by competent, substantial evidence that Former Husband willfully refused to give Former Wife the passport she reasonably requested. Further, we find no error in the trial court’s construction of the agreement and plan.
Finally, we do not deem that the purge provision deviates and modifies the agreement. The purge provision requires Former Husband “to comply with Former Wife’s prospective written requests for the minor child’s passport and produce same to the Former Wife within 48 hours of her request,” or the court may consider it grounds to modify the agreement. He contends that the court omitted and therefore modified the agreement’s provision that the request be reasonable. We do not conclude that the court was modifying the agreement and removing the requirement of reasonableness of the request. It was merely requiring strict compliance with the provision, as the trial court found that Former Husband had unreasonably withheld the passport.1 Affirmed. WARNER, MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.