Chopin and Chopin, LP v. Marianne K. Brennan and Daniel Joseph Brennan , 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16576 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    CHOPIN AND CHOPIN, LP,
    Appellant,
    v.
    MARIANNE K. BRENNAN and DANIEL JOSEPH BRENNAN,
    Appellees.
    No. 4D14-1599
    [November 4, 2015]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
    Beach County; Amy L. Smith, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010DR000678
    XXXXNB.
    Philip M. Chopin of Chopin & Chopin, LP, West Palm Beach, for
    appellant.
    Jennifer S. Carroll of the Law Offices of Jennifer S. Carroll, P.A., Palm
    Beach Gardens, for appellee Marianne K. Brennan.
    Daniel J. Brennan, Palm Beach Gardens, pro se.
    STEVENSON, J.
    Chopin and Chopin, LP (the Law Firm) appeals an order entered in this
    divorce proceeding, which required the Law Firm to refund to the Former
    Husband $12,333.70 that the trial court determined was paid to the Law
    Firm as “attorneys’ fees” to purge a contempt order. For the reasons stated
    below, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
    On July 13, 2012, the trial court found the Former Husband in indirect
    contempt for failure to pay alimony. To purge the contempt, he was
    required to pay the alimony arrearage plus the Former Wife’s attorneys’
    fees for bringing the contempt motion ($7,799.69). The Former Husband
    appealed the contempt order, and his appeal was consolidated with his
    prior appeal of the dissolution order on the merits.
    While the appeals were pending, the Former Wife filed a second motion
    for contempt, again seeking unpaid alimony. In her second motion, the
    Former Wife acknowledged that the Former Husband had paid his
    previous support obligations “in full, to purge the contempt and avoid
    incarceration.” She alleged, however, that he had again accrued an
    alimony arrearage.
    The parties settled the matter by preparing an Agreed Order. The
    Agreed Order recognized an alimony arrearage in the amount of
    $33,112.56 and provided that the Former Husband satisfy the alimony
    arrearage by paying $20,778.86 through the Florida State Disbursement
    Unit and $12,333.70 “payable to the Trust Account of Chopin & Chopin,
    LP.”1
    Shortly after the Agreed Order was entered, this court issued its
    decision in Brennan v. Brennan, 
    122 So. 3d 923
    (Fla. 4th DCA 2013),
    reversing the dissolution order in part and remanding. Brennan also
    reversed the post-judgment contempt order, including the requirement
    that the Former Husband pay the Former Wife’s attorneys’ fees as an
    additional purge amount.
    Following issuance of the mandate in Brennan, on remand, the trial
    court held a hearing to determine numerous issues, including the amount
    of alimony the Former Husband would owe going forward and what credits
    he should receive for overpayments (if any). At the evidentiary hearing,
    the Former Husband testified that he paid $12,333.70 to the Law Firm as
    attorneys’ fees to purge the contempt. By its order, the trial court found
    that the Law Firm should reimburse the Former Husband $12,333.70
    because the contempt order was vacated by this court’s decision in
    Brennan.
    In this appeal, the Former Husband concedes that his testimony was
    erroneous. Appearing pro se, he admits that of the $12,333.70 paid to the
    Law Firm, only $7,799.69 (the amount specified in the reversed contempt
    order) should be refunded. The Law Firm and the Former Wife2 argue that
    all of the money paid to the Law Firm was past-due alimony and that none
    of it was paid by the Former Husband to purge the contempt.
    The Agreed Order is in the nature of a settlement agreement.
    Settlement agreements are contractual and are interpreted and governed
    by contract law. Barone v. Rogers, 
    930 So. 2d 761
    , 763–64 (Fla. 4th DCA
    2006). Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is a question of law
    subject to the de novo standard of review. “Language in a contract is
    1   Chopin and Chopin, LP, represented the Former Wife at the time.
    2   The Former Wife appears as Appellee and filed her own Answer Brief.
    2
    ambiguous where it is ‘fairly susceptible to more than one interpretation.’”
    Torwest, Inc. v. Killilea, 
    942 So. 2d 1019
    , 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    (quoting McInerney v. Klovstad, 
    935 So. 2d 529
    , 531–32 (Fla. 5th DCA
    2006)).
    Because the Agreed Order directs payment by check made payable to
    the Law Firm, it is unclear whether the parties intended for the $12,333.70
    paid to the Law Firm to include the $7,799.69 in attorneys’ fees previously
    ordered to purge the contempt. For this reason, we find the Agreed Order
    contains an ambiguity, and we reverse and remand to the trial court to
    allow the parties to present parol evidence on this issue.
    On remand, if the Former Husband establishes that he paid attorneys’
    fees to purge the contempt, then he is entitled to reimbursement in the
    amount paid. See Marty v. Bainter, 
    727 So. 2d 1124
    , 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA
    1999) (an award of attorneys’ fees and costs predicated on a reversed or
    vacated final judgment also must be reversed).
    Reversed and remanded.
    LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 4D14-1599

Citation Numbers: 178 So. 3d 509, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16576

Judges: Stevenson, Levine, Klingensmith

Filed Date: 11/4/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024