Anton v. Anton

106 So. 3d 34, 2013 WL 332075, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1227
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 30, 2013
DocketNo. 3D12-1508
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 106 So. 3d 34 (Anton v. Anton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anton v. Anton, 106 So. 3d 34, 2013 WL 332075, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1227 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

FERNANDEZ, J.

Alejandro 0. Anton appeals a finding of indirect criminal contempt and order of commitment alleging that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. We agree and reverse.

Rule 3.840 sets forth the procedural safeguards that a court must enforce prior to the imposition of a sentence for indirect criminal contempt.1 The defendant must receive notice of the essential facts that constitute the criminal contempt and have an opportunity to show cause why the sentence should not be imposed.

Appellee Beatriz Rodriguez Anton initiated the contempt proceeding below in this dissolution of marriage case. The record reflects that she filed numerous motions for contempt, seeking compliance with a court order that prohibited the husband from having any direct or indirect contact with any of the tenants of a multi-unit residential apartment building, which is a marital asset. The husband appeared at the contempt hearing at which he admitted that he violated the terms of the court’s order. The court, however, did not issue a show cause order, and neither the notice of hearing on the wife’s various contempt motions nor the motions she filed placed the husband on notice that he potentially faced a criminal penalty at that contempt hearing. Thus, the court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt constituted fundamental error. See Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla.1977); De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

We therefore reverse the court’s finding of indirect criminal contempt without prejudice.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baratta v. Costa-Martinez
252 So. 3d 408 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Maher v. Junior
198 So. 3d 949 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Alex Diaz De La Portilla v. State of Florida
142 So. 3d 928 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Hash v. State
135 So. 3d 350 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 So. 3d 34, 2013 WL 332075, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anton-v-anton-fladistctapp-2013.