Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Contempt Hearing on February 28, 2002

Text: As a result of the finding of contempt on December 10, 2001, Cesario was remanded to the ACI, but allowed to purge himself by making sworn statements in court that he would refrain from all contact with the guardian and that he would not involve himself in any way in Bergquist's pending Family Court proceeding, and by depositing $5,000 into the court registry to be given to Bergquist if Cesario was found to be in contempt again. Less than two months after entry of this order, Bergquist filed a pro se motion to adjudge Cesario in contempt. After a hearing on February 25 and 28, 2002, the motion justice indeed found Cesario in contempt for the fourth time, and sentenced him to the ACI for fifteen days. He was allowed to purge the above sentence by depositing an additional $5,000 into the court registry. The original $5,000 was turned over to Bergquist. Cesario also was restrained and enjoined from contacting [Bergquist's] three children    in any way either directly or indirectly. He is not to circle any house they are staying in or visiting or from going near their school or anywhere else they may be. On March 19, 2002, Cesario filed an appeal. On April 15, 2002, a Corrected Order was entered that added a provision that Cesario could apply for release of the money on deposit after one year. We will treat the appeal, therefore, as from the April 15, 2002 adjudgment of contempt. On appeal, Cesario alleges that he was found in contempt for writing a letter to the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island accusing Brenda Rioles, Carol Bergquist's divorce attorney, of witness tampering, and for mailing a letter containing death threats. Cesario argues that there was no clear and convincing evidence that he violated the court's restraining order of December 10, 2001, that required him to make a sworn statement that he would not involve himself in any way in Bergquist's Family Court proceedings. He contends that even though he composed a letter to disciplinary counsel about witness tampering by Ms. Rioles, he never sent the letter, and thus, it did not constitute interference in the divorce proceedings. In this instance, Cesario provided a complete transcript of the hearing that resulted in the hearing justice's finding that he was in contempt of court orders directing him not to interfere with, directly or indirectly, Mr. Bergquist as he goes about his business, including, his business of invoking the judicial process to get his divorce. Civil contempt    is established when it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that a lawful decree was violated. Biron v. Falardeau, 798 A.2d 379, 382 (R.I.2002) (per curiam) (quoting Durfee v. Ocean State Steel, Inc., 636 A.2d 698, 704 (R.I.1994)). This Court has stated that findings of fact in contempt proceedings are within the sound discretion of the hearing justice and such findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly wrong or the [hearing] justice abused his or her discretion. Biron, 798 A.2d at 382. It is clear from the transcript that the hearing justice thoroughly considered the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witnesses. He spoke of the inherent powers of the Court to punish contempts in order to preserve and protect the integrity of the judicial system, and recognized that the alleged contempt dealt with the functioning of the Courts by its judges, lawful officers such as attorneys and guardians ad litem, and, of course, the Court's function for the benefit of those people who have to resolve their differences by going into the Court. The hearing justice found as a fact that Cesario authored a letter to disciplinary counsel, but that he never mailed it to disciplinary counsel. He further found, however, that Ms. Rioles received a copy of the letter sometime after December 21, 2001. He noted that, although the final judgment in the Bergquist divorce already had been entered at that time, the appeal period was still alive and vibrant, and concluded that the divorce proceedings were still active. He then opined, My Order to Mr. Cesario of December 10th to stay away from these proceedings could not be more clear.