Opinion ID: 1981926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commonwealth v. Ortiz; Appeal of Acevedo

Text: On December 8, 1987, appellant Zoraida Acevedo filed a petition for relief under the Protection from Abuse Act against her husband, Eric Ortiz, without payment of costs, on the basis of her averment in the petition itself that she did not have the funds available to pay the costs of filing and service. Nonetheless, as with appellant Eaches, the petition was accepted for filing and service without payment of the $40.50 filing fee. Following an ex parte hearing on the same day, the court entered a temporary Order against Ortiz, directing him to refrain from abusing, harassing or threatening appellant, and ejecting him from her premises. A full hearing was scheduled for December 15, 1987, and personal service of the temporary Order and notice of hearing was made on appellant by the Lehigh County sheriff on December 11, 1987. On December 13, 1987, the Allentown police, at appellant's request, executed a criminal complaint for indirect criminal contempt before a district justice, alleging Ortiz violated the temporary Order. Following a series of continuances, the final hearing was entered against Ortiz, and he was sentenced for criminal contempt, based upon his guilty plea. On February 7, 1988, a second criminal complaint for indirect criminal contempt was executed before a district justice against Ortiz. Ortiz was arrested and arraigned on February 7, 1988, and given personal, verbal notification of the contempt hearing scheduled for February 11, 1988. Neither appellant nor Ortiz appeared at that hearing, whereupon the court dismissed the complaint, directing costs be paid by appellant. On February 22, 1988, appellant filed a motion to reconsider averring neither she nor her counsel had received notice of the February 11, 1988 hearing, and requesting any fees and costs be imposed on Ortiz, who also did not appear at the February 11 hearing. On March 10, the court entered an Order directing that costs be borne equally by appellant and Ortiz.