Background
Former spouses Paola Del Fabbro and Luca Bonetto disputed a provision in their marital settlement agreement governing major decisions for their minor child, a dual national of Italy and Great Britain who was in the United States on a student visa. Del Fabbro wanted to seek permanent resident status for the child, but Bonetto withheld his consent.
Del Fabbro moved to enforce section 12.8(h) of the agreement, which required the parents to cooperate regarding an “immigration application” and prohibited either parent from unreasonably withholding consent. Without taking evidence, the circuit court ruled that the provision imposed no enforceable obligation and denied the motion. Its written order also appeared to equate “immigration application” with renewal of the child’s student visa, although another section separately addressed visa renewal.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District held that the phrase “immigration application” in section 12.8(h) is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Because the parties’ intent could not be determined from the agreement alone, the trial court must consider parol and extrinsic evidence at an evidentiary hearing.
The court further held that, if “immigration application” means something other than renewal of the child’s student visa, the provision expressly requires cooperation and prohibits either parent from unreasonably withholding consent. The trial court therefore must determine at an evidentiary hearing whether Bonetto’s refusal to consent was reasonable. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions, expressing no view on the merits of either party’s position.
Key Takeaways
- The term “immigration application” in the parties’ marital settlement agreement was ambiguous and could not be conclusively interpreted without extrinsic evidence.
- The agreement’s language imposed enforceable duties to cooperate and not to unreasonably withhold consent regarding a covered immigration application.
- The trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties’ intended meaning and, if necessary, whether the former husband reasonably withheld consent.
Why It Matters
A court may not resolve an ambiguous marital settlement provision solely as a matter of law when the parties’ intent requires consideration of extrinsic evidence. The decision also underscores that shared-parental-responsibility clauses can create enforceable limits on a parent’s ability to withhold consent from major decisions affecting a child.