A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Lett v. Lett, provides a stark and critical lesson on the severe financial consequences of interfering with a parenting plan. The case, which arose from a “long-enduring” and “tortured history of animus,” centered on a Former Wife’s (Kelly Lett) “persistent refusal” to honor her 50/50 timesharing agreement with the Former Husband (Jeremy Lett). The trial court, after years of this conduct, found the Former Wife in willful contempt.
The trial court’s order awarded the Former Husband “considerable” make-up timesharing and, most significantly, ordered the Former Wife to pay $19,693.46 in her ex-husband’s attorney’s fees. However, the trial court also added a futurepunishment: a pre-emptive fine of $25.00 for each future day of missed timesharing.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a “split decision” on these rulings, creating two powerful legal lessons for every person in a Tampa divorce.
- Attorney’s Fees as a Sanction (AFFIRMED): The appellate court affirmed the $19,693.46 fee award. It rejected the Former Wife’s argument that the court failed to consider the Former Husband’s “need” for the fees. The court held that in cases of timesharing interference, a judge does not have to consider “need and ability to pay.” The fee award is a sanction for the bad-faith conduct, and this ruling provides a powerful weapon for any parent facing an obstructing co-parent.
- Future Fines (REVERSED): The appellate court reversed the $25/day future fine. It ruled that this punishment violated the Former Wife’s constitutional right to “due process” because the Former Husband had never requested a fine in his legal motions. The court’s order, while well-intentioned, was an overreach of its power.
This case is a vital “tale of two rulings,” demonstrating both the immense power a court has to punish a parent for bad conduct and the strict constitutional limits on that power. It underscores the critical importance of specific legal drafting and the immense financial risks of not following a parenting plan.
The High Cost of Conflict: Timesharing Interference
A final judgment and its accompanying parenting plan are not suggestions; they are binding court orders. Unfortunately, in high-conflict divorce cases in Tampa and across Florida, one parent may attempt to “frustrate” or “interfere” with the other parent’s court-ordered time. This destructive behavior, which the Lett court noted involved “instigating conflict” and “unilateral interference,” can take many forms.
This conduct, sometimes broadly related to parental alienation, is a direct attack on the child’s relationship with the other parent. Examples of interference can include:
- Refusing Exchanges: Simply refusing to show up for the timesharing exchange or refusing to turn over the child.
- Scheduling Over the Other Parent: Intentionally scheduling sports, appointments, or activities during the other parent’s time without their consent.
- “Enabling” the Child: This was a specific finding in the Lett case. It involves a parent supporting, encouraging, or “enabling” a child’s (often baseless) refusal to see the other parent, effectively deputizing the child to do the interfering for them.
- Restricting Communication: Intercepting phone calls, blocking texts, or otherwise preventing the child from having a healthy and open line of communication with the other parent.
- Bad-Mouthing and Alienation: Constantly speaking negatively about the other parent to the child, forcing the child to “choose” a side and damaging their bond.
The Lett case was not based on a single, isolated incident. The court made its decision based on a “years-long pattern” and “persistent hindrance” of the Former Husband’s timesharing. This documented history of interference is what opened the door for the trial court’s severe sanctions.
The Legal Remedy: What is a Motion for Contempt and Enforcement?
When a parent’s timesharing rights are being violated, they cannot resort to “self-help.” The proper and only legal remedy is to file a Motion for Contempt and Enforcement, which is exactly what the Former Husband in Lett did.
This motion is a formal request asking the court to find the other parent in “willful contempt” of the final judgment. To win, the moving party (the “non-offending parent”) must prove two things:
- There was a clear, unambiguous court order (the parenting plan).
- The other parent (the “offending parent”) willfully and intentionally violated that clear order.
If the court, as it did in Lett, finds the offending parent in contempt, it has a broad range of powers to both coerce future compliance and punish past non-compliance. These remedies include:
- Ordering Compliance: A direct, stern order from the judge to follow the plan.
- Make-Up Timesharing: This is the most common remedy. The court will order the offending parent to provide the non-offending parent with “make-up” days for the time that was wrongfully taken. The Lett court awarded “considerable” make-up time.
- Modifying the Parenting Plan: In extreme cases of persistent, long-term interference, a court may find that the offending parent is not acting in the child’s best interests. This can be grounds for a modification of the parenting plan, which could include reducing the offending parent’s time or even, in the most severe cases, stripping them of shared parental responsibility.
- Ordering Attorney’s Fees and Costs: This is the financial “hammer” and the central legal issue in the Lett appeal.
The $19,693.46 Lesson: The Two Paths to Attorney’s Fees
The most important legal clarification from the Lett case is its analysis of attorney’s fees. The Former Wife’s appeal was based on a very common legal argument: the trial court awarded fees to the Former Husband without first considering his need for those fees or her ability to pay them. She argued that the standard fee statute in Florida family law, section 61.16, requires this “need and ability” test.
The appellate court agreed that the trial court did not perform this test. But it then held, in a crucial clarification, that the test was not required.
The court explained that there are two separate paths for a judge to award attorney’s fees in a Florida family law case. A Tampa divorce lawyer must understand and be prepared to argue both.
Path 1: The “Level Playing Field” Statute (Section 61.16(1))
This is the “default” statute for attorney’s fees in almost all family law matters, including the initial divorce.
- Purpose: To “ensure that both parties have similar access to competent legal counsel.” It is designed to be a “leveler,” allowing a lower-earning spouse to hire a qualified attorney and prevent a wealthier spouse from “papering them to death” with legal motions.
- The Test: To get fees under this statute, a judge must analyze the “financial resources of both parties.” This is the “need and ability to pay” test. The requesting party must show a need for the fees, and the other party must have a superior ability to pay them.
The Former Wife in Lett was arguing that this only path to fees had not been followed.
Path 2: The “Timesharing Sanction” Statute (Section 61.13(4)(c)2.)
This is the “game-changer” that the Lett court focused on. This statute is a different tool for a different job.
- Purpose: This law is not about “leveling the playing field.” It is a sanction designed to punish a parent who “refuses to honor the time-sharing schedule… without proper cause.”
- The Test: To get fees under this statute, the judge does not look at the parties’ finances. The only question is whether the offending parent engaged in “unjustified conduct.”
- The Lett Ruling: The court stated in no uncertain terms: “the need-and-ability-to-pay analysis born of section 61.16(1) does not apply.” The authority to award these fees is “triggered by the unjustified conduct of the offending parent and not any need of a non-offending parent.”
This is a massive legal distinction and a powerful weapon for any Tampa divorce lawyer representing an aggrieved parent. It means that even a wealthy parent who has no “need” for fees can still be fully reimbursed for their legal costs if they are forced to go to court to fight an obstructing co-parent.
The Lett court found that the Former Wife’s “years-long pattern of unilateral interference” was exactly the kind of bad-faith conduct this “sanction” statute was designed to address. The $19,693.46 award was not to “level the playing field”—it was a sanction to compensate the Former Husband for the money he was forced to spend to see his own children.
This ruling should serve as a terrifying financial warning to any parent in Tampa who is considering “playing games” with the parenting plan. The courts will not only make you give the time back, but they can, and will, make you pay every dollar of the other parent’s legal bill for your bad conduct—regardless of your or their financial situations.
A Judge’s Limit: Why the $25/Day Fine was Reversed
While the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s power to sanction the Former Wife’s past conduct, it firmly reversed the judge’s attempt to pre-emptively sanction her future conduct. This part of the ruling is a vital lesson in the constitutional limits of judicial power.
The trial court, clearly frustrated with the Former Wife’s “continued behavior,” ordered that if any future timesharing was missed, she would be fined $25.00 per day.
The appellate court reversed this, calling it a violation of “due process.”
- What is Due Process? At its core, due process is the right to “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” A court cannot rule on an issue that has not been properly brought before it.
- The Motion: The Former Husband’s motion never asked for a pre-emptive, $25-per-day fine. He asked for contempt, make-up time, and attorney’s fees.
- The Hearing: Because the fine was not in the motion, the Former Wife was not “on notice” that she would need to defend against this specific penalty. The issue was not “argued or discussed at the hearing.”
- The Error: The appellate court held, “a court violates due process when it awards a remedy that a party did not seek.” The trial judge, in an attempt to stop the cycle of conflict, had overstepped his bounds.
The Former Husband’s motion did have the standard, “customary catch-all request” for “any further relief the trial court deemed appropriate.” But the appellate court confirmed that this vague, boilerplate language is not specific enough to satisfy the due process requirement for a new, unrequested punitive sanction.
This is a critical protection. It means that even a parent who has been found in contempt multiple times, like the Former Wife, still has the right to know exactly what penalties they are facing before they walk into a courtroom. A judge cannot simply invent a new punishment that was never requested. This is a key protection that a Tampa divorce lawyer is trained to identify. If a judge awards a remedy that was not “pled,” that is an immediate and reversible error.
Lessons from a “Tortured” Divorce
The Lett v. Lett case is a powerful “good vs. bad” example of family law litigation. The Former Husband’s legal team successfully used the law to get all the relief their client was entitled to, while the Former Wife’s team (on appeal) successfully identified a clear case of judicial overreach.
There are several key takeaways for anyone in a Tampa divorce:
- Bad Behavior Has a Price Tag: The Lett case is definitive proof that courts are fed up with parental interference. The $19,693.46 fee award is a sanction, not a subsidy. If you interfere with a parenting plan, you can be forced to pay the other side’s legal bills, regardless of their income or yours.
- The “Sanction” Statute is a Powerful Tool: Any Tampa divorce lawyer filing a motion for contempt over timesharing must be aware of section 61.13(4)(c)2. Pleading this statute as the basis for a fee award removes the high hurdle of the “need and ability” test.
- Legal Pleadings Must Be Specific: The Former Husband “lost” on the $25 fine because his motion was not specific. This shows that “catch-all” language is weak. A Tampa divorce lawyer must be specific and ask for every single remedy they want the court to consider, from make-up time to sanctions to a compliance bond.
- Due Process Protects Everyone: The reversal of the fine proves that the system works. A judge’s frustration with a party does not give them the power to ignore the Constitution. The rules of due process protect all parties, even those who are found to be in the wrong.
- Document Everything: The only reason the Former Husband won his contempt motion was because he had a “long-enduring” and “established record” of the Former Wife’s conduct. A Tampa divorce lawyer will tell you the same thing: you must document every violation. Save texts, emails, and calendar screenshots. A single, unproven allegation will get you nowhere; a “years-long pattern” of documented interference will win you make-up time and nearly $20,000 in attorney’s fees.
The Lett case is a harsh warning about the extreme financial and personal costs of a high-conflict custody battle. It demonstrates that the law provides both a powerful sword (the fee sanction) and a strong shield (due process) for litigants. Navigating such a high-stakes environment requires a Tampa divorce lawyer who is not only a skilled trial attorney but also a precise legal drafter.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are either being denied your timesharing rights, or are being accused of violating a parenting plan, the legal and financial stakes are enormous. Contact our office for a consultation to understand your specific rights and obligations under your court order.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a motion for contempt for timesharing? It is a legal motion asking the court to find that your co-parent has willfully and intentionally violated the court-ordered parenting plan. This is the first step to getting a remedy like make-up time or attorney’s fees.
Can I get my attorney’s fees paid if my ex interferes with my time? Yes. The Lett v. Lett case confirms that a court can order the offending parent to pay 100% of your “reasonable court costs and attorney’s fees” as a sanction for wrongfully interfering with your timesharing.
What is the “need and ability to pay” test for fees? This is the standard test in most family law cases, where the court must look at one party’s need for financial help to pay their lawyer and the other party’s ability to pay.
Why did the court in Lett say the “need” test didn’t apply? The court held that for attorney’s fees related to timesharing interference under section 61.13(4)(c)2., the “need and ability” test is not required. The fee award is a sanction for the bad conduct, not a needs-based subsidy.
What is “make-up timesharing”? This is the most common remedy for contempt. The judge will order the offending parent to give the non-offending parent “make-up” days to compensate for the time that was wrongfully denied.
What is “due process” in a family law case? Due process is a constitutional right that guarantees “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In the Lett case, the court violated the Former Wife’s due process by fining her for something that was never requested in the motion, meaning she had no notice to defend against it.
The McKinney Law Group: Skilled, Supportive Divorce Representation in Tampa
Your divorce deserves careful planning and strong advocacy. Our Tampa attorneys provide compassionate, results-driven representation designed to protect your future.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to speak with our team.