MARLEN PERNETTI,
v.
TELESFORO NINO PERNETTI,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The former wife challenges a trial court's order finding her in indirect criminal contempt for violating prior court orders. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the trial court failed to follow the strict procedural requirements for contempt proceedings and violated the former wife's due process rights.
The court reversed the contempt order because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements: the initial motion was unsworn and lacked an affidavit, making it insufficient to support an order to show cause; and the court failed to afford the former wife an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of her conduct prior to pronouncing her in contempt and imposing sentence.
[1] Indirect criminal contempt proceedings require strict adherence to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
[2] A motion initiating indirect criminal contempt proceedings must be sworn and accompanied by an affidavit to be sufficient to support an order to show cause.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Indirect criminal contempt proceedings require strict adherence to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural standard governing contempt cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband filed a motion seeking sanctions for alleged violations of prior orders, including a directive that both parties not disparage each…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.840 cases and more on FLexlaw
LOBREE, J. Marlen Pernetti (the “former wife”) petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking relief from the trial court’s order finding her in indirect criminal contempt for her
failure to comply with prior orders and directing that she serve a weekend in the county jail, complete anger management, and pay a sanction toward the attorney’s fees of Nino Pernetti (the “former husband”).
We treat the petition as a plenary appeal because the order finds her guilty of indirect criminal contempt.1 Because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements for indirect criminal contempt proceedings and deprived the former wife of the constitutional due process protections to which she is entitled, we reverse. Indirect criminal contempt proceedings require strict adherence to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Bajcar v. Bajcar, 247 So. 3d 613, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
The former husband initiated the contempt proceeding by filing a motion seeking sanctions due to alleged violations of prior orders requiring, among other things, that both parties not disparage each other before their children. This motion was unsworn, and not accompanied by an affidavit.
Thus, it was insufficient to support the court’s subsequent order to show cause. See id. (citing De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). Here, “there is only the caption verified on the pleadings, followed by an acknowledgment, which is different than swearing to a fact.” Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627, 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Finally, prior to the trial court’s written pronouncement finding the former wife in contempt and sentencing her to incarceration, the court should have afforded her an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of her conduct. See De Castro, 957 So. 2d at 1260-61.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yilka de Castro v. Scorpio de Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Int'l Med. Ctrs., Inc. v. Colavecchio, 563 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Angelberto Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Bronislaw Bajcar v. Monika Klaudia Bajcar, 247 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)