A Florida court recently addressed a divorce case involving social media restrictions and attorney's fees. The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled on December 29, 2021, in the case of Gerald R. Smith v. Cheryl Ann Short (Docket No. 2D20-3506). The decision impacts how marital settlement agreements are enforced, particularly concerning social media conduct.
The case arose from the dissolution of marriage between Gerald R. Smith (the Former Husband) and Cheryl Ann Short (the Former Wife). Their divorce was finalized in May 2019, and the trial court adopted a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that included provisions for the Former Wife to buy out the Former Husband's interest in a marine towing company. The MSA aimed to ensure a smooth transition of business ownership, with the Former Wife taking full control alongside two partners.
In August 2020, the parties entered a global postjudgment settlement agreement to address issues that arose after the divorce. This agreement included a noninterference clause, which prohibited the Former Husband from making derogatory statements that could harm the LLC or the Former Wife's reputation. The agreement specified that this restriction would last until April 30, 2024, and allowed the Former Wife to seek injunctive relief if the terms were violated.
The dispute escalated when the Former Wife alleged that the Former Husband breached the agreement by posting a comment on Facebook that criticized the LLC's management. In her Verified Motion for Enforcement, she claimed the post was damaging to the business and sought an injunction against the Former Husband's social media activities, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
The trial court found the Former Husband in breach of the noninterference agreement and ordered him to remove the Facebook post. Additionally, the court issued an injunction that restricted the Former Husband's social media use and required him to notify his Facebook friends about the injunction. The court also awarded the Former Wife $3,832.25 in attorney's fees.
However, the District Court of Appeal found the injunction to be overbroad. The court stated, "A court should not issue an injunction broader than necessary to protect the injured party under the particular circumstances." The ruling emphasized that the injunction's language unnecessarily restricted the Former Husband from posting anything on social media, regardless of the content. The court reversed the injunction and instructed the trial court to narrow its terms to specifically address interference with the LLC.
Regarding the attorney's fees, the appellate court noted that there was no substantial evidence presented during the contempt hearing to justify the award. The court stated that while an affidavit from the Former Wife's attorney was included in the record, it did not provide sufficient evidence to support the fee award. Therefore, the court reversed the attorney's fees and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount.
This ruling has significant implications for future divorce cases involving social media and business interests. It highlights the need for courts to carefully consider the scope of injunctions to protect First Amendment rights while ensuring compliance with marital agreements. The decision also underscores the importance of providing adequate evidence when seeking attorney's fees in such cases.
Going forward, the trial court will need to revise the injunction to ensure it is not overly broad and to hold a hearing to establish the proper attorney's fees. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in Florida, particularly those involving social media restrictions and enforcement of marital agreements.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the Former Husband plans to appeal the ruling further or if there are any related cases pending.