Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 25, 2020. ________________ No. 3D19-1594 Lower Tribunal No. 17-3536 ________________ Noel Acosta, Appellant, vs. In Re: Guardianship of Mayra Acosta, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa C. Figarola, Judge. Law Office of Lance A. Garrett, P.A., and Lance A. Garrett (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez, P.A., and Andrew S. Berman and Jamie L. Webner, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. GORDO, J. ON CONFESSION OF ERROR Noel Acosta appeals the trial court’s final judgment finding him guilty of contempt for willfully, wantonly and contemptuously failing to comply with a court order in this guardianship case. Mr. Acosta argues that the order was vague and ambiguous, and that there was no evidence he intentionally violated the court’s order. “[A] party cannot be sanctioned for contempt for violating a court directive or order which is not clear and definite as to how a party is to comply with the court’s command.” Ross Dress for Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511, 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); see Northstar Invs. & Dev., Inc. v. Pobaco, Inc., 691 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“A party may not be held in contempt of court for violation of an order . . . which is not clear and definite so as to make the party aware of its command and direction.”); Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). It is also an “essential element of contempt” that there be an “intent to violate the relevant court order.” Northstar, 691 So. 2d at 566 (citing Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)). On confession of error, Appellee concedes she cannot in good faith defend the contempt citation as there was enough ambiguity to support Appellant’s interpretation of the order and his objective conduct was consistent with this interpretation. Reversed and remanded. 2