Marlen Pernetti v. Telesforo Nino Pernetti
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 26, 2020
Docket3D19-1818
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 26, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1818
Lower Tribunal No. 07-12117
________________
Marlen Pernetti,
Appellant,
vs.
Telesforo Nino Pernetti,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bernard S.
Shapiro, Judge.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.
Buckner, Shifrin, Etter, Dugan & Bradfute, P.A., and Jeannie M. Etter, for
appellee.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
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
1
See Int’l Med. Centers, Inc. v. Colavecchio, 563 So. 2d 784, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA
1990).
2
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.
3