BARATTA
v.
COSTA-MARTINEZ
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.
A pick-up order and finding of indirect criminal contempt must be reversed when the trial court fails to issue a show cause order and does not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
[1] In an indirect criminal contempt proceeding, a trial court must issue a show cause order and comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 before entering a pick-u…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFather Baratta was ordered by the trial court on July 25, 2016, to pay approximately $21,000 in attorney's fees to the Mandel Law Group, which had rep…
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
PER CURIAM.
Respondent/Father Anthony Patrick Baratta appeals the Pick-Up Order and Break Order entered on August 3, 2018. The pick-up order was entered upon the Motion for Order of Commitment to Take Respondent/Father into Custody and for Writ of Bodily Attachment filed by the Mandel Law Group on July 31, 2018. This motion was accompanied by an affidavit from attorney, Roberta G. Mandel, Esq., attesting that Baratta had failed to comply with the trial court’s July 25, 2016 order to pay approximately $21,000 in attorney’s fees to the Mandel Law Group, P.A. The Mandel Law Group formerly represented the Petitioner/Mother Tatiana Costa-Martinez. We reverse the pick-up order because, upon the filing of the motion for order of commitment and accompanying affidavit, no show cause order was issued and because there was no compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, applicable to indirect criminal contempt proceedings. See Maher v. Junior, 198 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We therefore reverse the trial court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt without prejudice.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Yilka de Castro v. Scorpio de Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Angelberto Decoro v. State, 771 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Maher v. Junior, 198 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)