DENIE RAY KIGER v. JESSICA LINDSAY KIGER ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 9, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-1150
    Lower Tribunal No. 18-600-K
    ________________
    Denie Ray Kiger,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Jessica Lindsay Kiger,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe
    County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.
    Joyce Law, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce; Law Offices of Samuel J.
    Kaufman, P.A., and Samuel J. Kaufman, for appellant.
    Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., and Daniel H. Kent and Martin L.
    Hoffman, for appellee.
    Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Denie Ray Kiger (Former Husband) appeals the trial court’s April 14,
    2021 order dismissing his petition seeking to modify his parenting plan and
    to relocate his minor child from Key West, Florida, to Albuquerque, New
    Mexico. Jessica Lindsay Kiger (Former Wife) moved to dismiss Former
    Husband’s petition. 1 The trial court granted Former Wife’s motion to dismiss,
    in pertinent part, on the ground that the parties’ parenting plan plainly and
    expressly requires mediation as a condition precedent to seeking court
    intervention of a substantial dispute between the parties. The record
    discloses that no mediation occurred prior to Former Husband’s filing of the
    subject petition.
    The parties’ marital settlement agreement, which contains the
    parenting plan as an exhibit, is a contract subject to interpretation like any
    contract. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 
    54 So. 3d 553
    , 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
    Here, the provision at issue unambiguously requires mediation prior to
    litigation. See Levitt v. Levitt, 
    699 So. 2d 755
    , 756-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
    (“Where the terms of a marital settlement agreement are clear and
    unambiguous, the parties’ intent must be gleaned from the four corners of
    the document.”). 2
    1
    Former Husband also filed an “Urgent Motion to Permit Temporary
    Relocation with Minor Child” which mirrored his petition.
    2
    Affirmed.
    2
    Former Husband argues that there is an “emergency” exception to the
    parenting plan’s mediation requirement, and that the trial court erred by not
    determining whether Former Husband’s employment relocation constituted
    such an emergency. We are unable to review this issue because we have
    no transcript of the April 8, 2021 hearing on Former Wife’s motion to dismiss
    the petition. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 
    377 So. 2d 1150
    ,
    1152 (Fla. 1979).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1150

Filed Date: 2/9/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/9/2022