A 2025 decision from the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2DCA), which is the appellate court that governs all divorce and family law cases in Tampa, has provided a critical, two-part lesson for every person involved in a post-divorce dispute. In the case of Stamler v. Stamler, a case appealed directly from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, the 2DCA was asked to review a trial court’s enforcement order. The trial judge had ordered a Former Husband to pay his Former Wife $15,793.13 in child-related expenses.
The appellate court’s decision was a “split” ruling that serves as a powerful reminder of how complex these cases can be. First, the 2DCA agreed with the trial court’s legal interpretation of the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA). It found that the Husband was, in fact, responsible for all the expenses, even those not paid with a “designated” credit card. However, the appellate court reversed the entire $15,793.13 order and sent the case back for a new hearing.
The reason for the reversal was a fundamental violation of the Former Husband’s constitutional rights. The trial judge, running out of time in a one-hour hearing, cut the proceeding short and refused to allow the Former Husband to testify or present his evidence. The 2DCA ruled that a judge’s busy schedule cannot override a party’s fundamental, constitutional right to be heard. This case is a profound lesson in the two halves of justice: being right on the law, and having a fair opportunity to make your case.
Part 1: The Legal Dispute – A “Simple” Reimbursement Agreement
The core of the Stamler case was a dispute over the interpretation of a single section of the parties’ MSA. This is a scenario that any Tampa divorce lawyer has seen countless times. The agreement was designed to create a clear, simple system for handling child-related expenses, but its specific wording opened the door for a major conflict.
The MSA stated that the Former Husband was “100% responsible” for a list of expenses, including school tuition, tutoring, and cell phones. To manage this, the agreement created what was supposed to be a simple mechanism:
- The Former Wife would establish “one credit card” in her name.
- That card would be used “exclusively for” the listed child-related expenses.
- The Wife would provide the monthly statement to the Husband.
- The Husband would reimburse her 100% of the charges within 30 days.
This type of “designated account” or “designated card” is a very common drafting technique. An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will often suggest such a mechanism to create a clean paper trail and prevent the commingling of personal and child-related expenses, which is a frequent source of post-divorce conflict. In theory, this clause should have prevented arguments.
In reality, it created one.
The Former Wife, Ms. Stamler, did obtain the designated “Athleta MasterCard.” However, she did not use it for every single transaction. She testified that she also paid for covered expenses using Venmo, her Bank of America account, and her Chase Bank account. She claimed she did this for items she “could not put on the Athleta credit card” or for the “one or two times” she mistakenly did not have the card with her.
In March 2023, the Former Wife filed a motion for contempt, alleging the Former Husband had stopped reimbursing her and now owed $15,793.13 for expenses paid through all of these different methods.
This led to a central legal showdown over the meaning of one word: “exclusively.”
The Former Husband’s Argument: He argued for a “strict construction” of the contract. His Tampa divorce lawyerargued that the agreement required the expenses to be paid exclusively with the designated credit card. His position was that this was a condition of the agreement; if she used another payment method, she breached the agreed-upon procedure, and he was not obligated to reimburse her for those specific charges.
The Former Wife’s Argument: She argued for a “purpose-oriented” construction. Her Tampa divorce lawyer argued that the main clause of the contract was the one that stated the Husband was “100% responsible.” The credit card was merely a procedural mechanism for accounting, not an “all-or-nothing” condition that would void his primary obligation. She argued that the purpose of “exclusively” was to prevent her from using the card for her personal expenses, not to prevent her from using other methods to pay for legitimate child expenses.
The trial court, and ultimately the appellate court, had to decide which interpretation was correct.
Part 2: The Binding Law in Tampa – How Courts Interpret “Ambiguous” Agreements
The 2DCA, Tampa’s binding appellate court, sided with the Former Wife on the law. In its decision, the court provided a masterclass in how judges are supposed to interpret contracts like an MSA.
The court rejected the Former Husband’s argument that “exclusively” was a limit on his reimbursement obligation. It held that this was a fundamental misreading of the sentence. The appellate court found:
- The agreement states the “card will be used exclusively for child-related expenses.”
- The word “exclusively” is an adverb. It modifies the card.
- This means the card’s use is restricted. The Former Wife cannot use this card to buy her own clothes, groceries, or gas. It is for child expenses only.
- The agreement does not state that “child-related expenses will be paid exclusively by means of the credit card.”
This is a critical, and brilliant, distinction. The 2DCA found that the primary, dominant clause was the Husband’s “100% responsibility.” The credit card language served two other purposes:
- To Restrict the Wife: It prevented her from commingling her personal expenses on the reimbursement statement.
- To Trigger the 30-Day Clock: The 30-day reimbursement deadline was triggered by the receipt of the credit card statement.
The court found that the agreement was completely silent on what happens when the Wife pays for a legitimate, covered expense (like tutoring) with Venmo. It did not disqualify her from reimbursement. The court affirmed the trial judge’s legal finding that the Former Husband is responsible for all the enumerated child expenses, regardless of the payment method, so long as the Wife provides him with proper documentation.
This ruling is now the binding law in Tampa. It is a powerful precedent that confirms Hillsborough County judges will look to the purpose and substance of an agreement over a “gotcha” technicality based on a single, misplaced word. A good Tampa divorce lawyer will know that this “substance over form” approach is a cornerstone of family law, which is a court of equity.
Part 3: The Reversal – A “Fundamental Violation of Due Process”
The Former Wife won the legal argument. So why was her $15,793.13 award reversed?
Because the trial court, while correct on the law, committed a fatal procedural error. It violated the Former Husband’s constitutional right to procedural due process.
The “right to be heard” is the single most fundamental right in the American justice system. It means more than just being physically present in the courtroom. It includes the right to “introduce evidence at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”
The trial court in Stamler failed this basic test.
- The hearing was scheduled for only one hour, which is often not enough time for a complex financial dispute.
- The parties and the court spent most of this hour arguing the legal issue (the meaning of “exclusively”).
- After the Former Wife testified, the trial judge, realizing she was “now 15 minutes late for [her] next hearing,” announced, “I am done with testimony.”
- The Former Husband’s Tampa divorce lawyer immediately and properly objected, stating on the record: “my client hadn’t even testified yet.” And later: “the other issue is my client didn’t testify and he probably has a different version.”
- The trial court ignored this, concluded the hearing, and later issued a written order for the full $15,793.13.
This is a classic “denial of due process.” The Former Husband was not given the opportunity to be heard.
Why This Violation Mattered
The appellate court noted that this error was not “harmless.” The Former Husband’s “different version” was critical to the case. He had a factual dispute, but the judge never let him present evidence on it.
- He Claimed Payments Were Made: The Former Husband had argued that he had already reimbursed the Wife for the expenses on the Athleta card (though he admitted he paid late). The Wife’s $15k spreadsheet included some of these expenses he claimed he had already paid.
- He Disputed the Other Expenses: He had a right to challenge the other payments. Were the Venmo and Chase expenses actually for the children? Were they “reasonable” and “in compliance” with the MSA?
The trial judge prevented him from presenting this evidence. Then, in a final, ironic twist, the judge wrote in her final order that there was “no evidence that the expenses incurred were unreasonable.”
The 2DCA called this out. The reason there was “no evidence” was because the judge refused to hear it. This is an unconstitutional “Catch-22” and a clear abuse of discretion. The appellate court ruled that a “trial court’s adherence to the one-hour time limitation” is understandable, but it cannot justify violating a litigant’s core constitutional rights.
The entire $15,793.13 order was reversed and “remanded,” meaning it was sent back to the Hillsborough County court for a new hearing—one that is not cut short, and one where the Former Husband is finally allowed to testify.
What This Hillsborough County Case Means for Your Tampa Divorce
The Stamler v. Stamler decision is a powerful, binding precedent in Tampa that provides two critical lessons for anyone in a family law dispute.
1. The Law vs. The Procedure: You Must Win Both This case is the perfect illustration that a trial is a two-part battle. The Former Wife won on the law. Her Tampa divorce lawyer was 100% correct in their interpretation of the contract. But she lost the hearing (and the appeal) because the procedure was flawed. A judge must be right on the law and must be fair in the process. This is why a skilled Tampa divorce lawyer is not just a legal scholar; they are a procedural guard dog, objecting on the record (as the Husband’s lawyer did) to protect a client’s rights when a procedural violation occurs.
2. Drafting is Destiny: Ambiguity Costs a Fortune This entire, multi-year, multi-thousand-dollar legal battle was caused by a single, poorly drafted sentence. The word “exclusively” was ambiguous in its context. This ambiguity cost the Stamler family a trial, an appeal, and now a second trial. A better-drafted agreement from a Tampa divorce lawyer would have been clear. For example: “The Husband is responsible for 100% of the enumerated expenses, regardless of payment method, so long as the Wife provides reasonable documentation.” That one sentence would have saved this family a fortune.
3. A Judge’s Schedule Does Not Trump Your Rights This is the most empowering lesson for litigants. You have a rightto be heard. You have a right to testify. You have a right to present your evidence. A judge cannot cut your hearing short and rule against you just because they are running late. The Stamler case gives your Tampa divorce lawyer a powerful local precedent to cite when telling a judge, “Your Honor, we are not finished, and my client has a constitutional right to present their case.”
4. The 2DCA is a “Text-Based” Court The court’s analysis of the word “exclusively” is a signal to every Tampa divorce lawyer. This court will read the contract. It will analyze the plain text. The judges will not rewrite a bad agreement, but they will read it in a logical, common-sense manner that gives effect to the entire document, not just one “gotcha” word.
In the end, a post-divorce enforcement action is not as simple as showing up and telling a judge you are owed money. It is a formal legal proceeding with high stakes and rigid rules. The Stamler case is a perfect example of how a party can be 100% right on the facts and the law, but still lose the hearing by being denied the chance to speak.
The details of a Marital Settlement Agreement and the procedures of a post-judgment hearing are complex and fraught with legal traps. The difference between a $15,000 judgment and a complete reversal can hinge on a single objection or a single sentence in an agreement. If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce or an enforcement action, you need an advocate who understands both the law and the procedure. Contact our office for a consultation to ensure your rights are protected.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is “procedural due process” in a Tampa divorce? Procedural due process is a fundamental, constitutional right that, in simple terms, guarantees you “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” In the Stamler case, the court violated this right by refusing to let the Former Husband testify, thus denying him his “opportunity to be heard.”
What happens if a judge runs out of time in my hearing? As the Stamler case confirms, a judge “running out of time” is not a valid reason to deny a party the right to present their case. The proper remedy is for the judge to “continue” the hearing to a future date and time, not to simply cut it off and rule without all the evidence.
Why is this Stamler case, from the 2DCA, important for my Tampa divorce? The Second District Court of Appeal (2DCA) is the appellate court with direct jurisdiction over all circuit court cases in Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas, and other nearby counties. This means its rulings are binding precedent that every Tampa judge must follow.
What is a “reversal and remand”? This is an order from an appellate court. “Reversal” means the trial court’s order is voided. “Remand” means the case is sent back to the trial court with instructions. In Stamler, the case was remanded with instructions to complete the hearing and allow the Husband to testify.
My MSA has language I don’t understand. What should I do? The Stamler case shows that one ambiguous word can lead to years of litigation. Before signing any agreement, and especially if you have a dispute over an existing agreement, you should have an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer review the plain text and advise you on your rights and obligations.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Attorneys Dedicated to Your Peace of Mind
We help Tampa clients handle divorce with dignity and confidence. Whether contested or uncontested, our firm provides the legal support needed for a smooth, fair resolution.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to begin the process.