Court Opinion

ID: 9948148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:06:26.251057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:12.947513
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                      WILBERT B. PINO, JR., M.D.,
                             Appellant,

                                     v.

                        MARIA GRACIELA PINO,
                              Appellee.

                            No. 4D2022-3258

                             [March 6, 2024]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Darren Shull, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502005DR010973.

  Alan D. Henderson of Henderson Law, P.A., St. Augustine, for
appellant.

   Grace Mackey Streicher and Andrew A. Harris of Harris Appeals, P.A.,
Palm Beach Gardens, and Cindy Crawford of The Law Office of Cindy A.
Crawford, PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

FORST, J.

   Appellant Wilbert B. Pino, Jr., M.D., (“Former Husband”) timely appeals
the trial court’s order granting appellee Maria Graciela Pino’s (“Former
Wife”) motion for commitment. The order found Former Husband guilty of
indirect civil contempt and struck Former Husband’s supplemental
petition to modify or terminate alimony as a sanction under Florida Family
Law Rule of Procedure 12.380(b)(2). However, in granting Former Wife’s
motions, the trial court abused its discretion when it held a hearing on the
motion and failed to give Former Husband the same opportunity to present
evidence as Former Wife. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s grant of Former
Wife’s motion and remand to continue the hearing.

                               Background

   The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2005, and the parties entered a
settlement agreement requiring Former Husband to pay alimony. In 2019,
Former Wife moved for contempt and enforcement, alleging that Former
Husband stopped making his alimony payments. She began seeking
financial discovery. Former Husband began to produce documents in
response to discovery, but Former Wife was unsatisfied with his
production of documents related to Former Husband’s retirement
accounts, so she filed several motions to compel production.

   Former Wife’s motions resulted in several contempt orders. When these
contempt orders were not complied with, the parties entered an agreed
order finding Former Husband in contempt and stating that Former
Husband was required to take all action to provide the documents which
Former Wife had requested. Former Husband provided some discovery
documents, but Former Wife claimed his response was inadequate and
moved to have Former Husband “committed” (i.e., taken into custody until
such time as Former Husband complied with the court’s discovery orders).

   Around this time, Former Husband filed a petition to modify or
terminate his alimony payments. However, Former Wife moved to strike
and/or dismiss the petition on the basis that Former Husband had failed
to comply with the trial court’s discovery order.

   Eventually, the trial court held a hearing on Former Wife’s motion for
commitment and her motion to strike and/or dismiss Former Husband’s
petition as a sanction. Former Wife’s position was that Former Husband
had failed to provide all the requested documents and that he had not
exercised all efforts to obtain the documents.

   Former Wife was the only witness to testify at the hearing. She
explained that Former Husband had failed to provide the required
documents.     At several points during direct examination, Former
Husband’s counsel objected to a lack of personal knowledge, but the trial
court overruled all of these exceptions, explaining at one point that Former
Husband could attack Former Wife’s lack of personal knowledge on cross-
examination.

   Former Husband began to cross-examine Former Wife. Before he had
concluded, the trial court ended the hearing, due to the trial court having
another hearing scheduled to begin. Former Husband argued that a full
evidentiary hearing was needed and requested additional time to complete
the hearing. The trial court asked Former Husband if he could finish his
case in writing, and Former Husband agreed.

    After the hearing, Former Husband filed his response to the trial court’s
request for written argument. Former Husband argued that he was not
afforded adequate time to present his case at the hearing because he did
not complete cross-examination and he did not get the chance to testify.

                                     2
His response also maintained that he had produced all the required
discovery documents, and to that point, Former Husband attached over
700 pages of exhibits consisting of demonstrative aids and various letters
and emails sent to retirement companies, among other documents. He
also provided the trial court over 7,800 pages of documents which he
allegedly had produced in discovery.

   The trial court did not continue the hearing, and instead granted
Former Wife’s motion for commitment (“Former Husband shall be taken
into custody and confined in the Palm Beach County Jail unless he purges
himself of his contempt”) and struck Former Husband’s petition. Former
Husband then moved for rehearing, arguing that his due process rights
were violated because he was not afforded adequate time to present his
case. This timely appeal follows.

                                  Analysis

   Former Husband argues that the trial court erred when it failed to allow
him to present evidence and testimony, violating his right to be heard. 1

   We review whether a party was denied the opportunity to be heard for
an abuse of discretion. Kilnapp v. Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d 1051, 1053 (Fla.
4th DCA 2014). However, “[w]hether a trial court has complied with the
guarantees of due process is reviewed de novo.” Ackerman v. HMC Assets,
LLC, 338 So. 3d 295, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

   It is well-settled that “[a] party to be sanctioned for discovery violations
must first be given notice and an opportunity to be heard and offer
mitigating or extenuating evidence as to why discovery did not take place.”
Wildwood Props., Inc. v. Archer of Vero Beach, Inc., 621 So. 2d 691, 692
(Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see Huerta v. Grajales, 357 So. 3d 153, 155 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2023). “The trial court has a duty to control the proceedings,
ensuring that both sides have a fair share of the court’s time.” Smith v.
Smith, 964 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). And both sides must be
given adequate time to present their case. Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516,
520–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1998).

   While the complete denial of the right to be heard is a due process
violation, the trial court does have discretion in how it gives a party the

1 Because we agree with Former Husband that the trial court abused its
discretion when it did not allow him to present evidence or testimony, we need
not address the merits of Former Husband’s remaining arguments.

                                      3
opportunity to be heard. Garcia-Mathies Interiors, Inc. v. Peré, 259 So. 3d
213, 215–16 & n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also Wyandt v. Voccio, 148 So.
3d 543, 544 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“A trial court can abuse its discretion
by unreasonably denying a party the opportunity to call witnesses or to
testify on his or her own behalf.”).

   Here, the trial court abused its discretion when it did not provide
Former Husband with the same opportunity to be heard as Former Wife.
The trial court allowed only Former Wife to testify before ending the
hearing. And during the hearing, the trial court overruled several
objections to Former Wife’s lack of personal knowledge, explicitly stating
once that Former Husband could address Former Wife’s personal
knowledge on cross-examination. But when the court ended the hearing,
Former Husband had not finished his cross-examination. While Former
Husband initially agreed with the trial court that the case could be
concluded in writing, Former Husband requested in his post-hearing
submission—before the trial court ruled on Former Wife’s motion—that he
be given a chance to present his case at a continuation of the hearing.
Because Former Wife was given an opportunity to speak and present her
testimony at a hearing, Former Husband should have been given that
same opportunity. See Douglas v. Douglas, 363 So. 3d 157, 161 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2023); Kilnapp, 140 So. 3d at 1054 (“When a court fails to give one
party the opportunity to present witnesses or testify on his or her own
behalf, the court has violated that party’s fundamental right to procedural
due process.” (quoting Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605, 607 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2011))).

   We make no comment on the persuasiveness of Former Husband’s
evidence. See, e.g., Pettry, 706 So. 2d at 108 (“Perhaps the additional
witnesses would not have impressed the court, but the husband had the
right to present them and to argue his case at the conclusion of all the
testimony.”); Julia, 146 So. 3d at 521 (“Even if the trial court believed that
recalling the witnesses would not make any further impression on the
court, it was still required to allow the Wife to present her case fully,
including argument at the conclusion of the evidence.”). 2

2 We express no opinion on whether Former Husband is required to provide
historical documents from any specific retirement accounts based on an agreed
order between the parties. However, we note that without a transcript of a
hearing, we will not accept assertions of what happened during a proceeding
based solely on representations made in the parties’ briefs. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.200(b)(5) (outlining proper procedure to prepare a statement of evidence or
proceedings where a transcript is unavailable).

                                       4
   However, we note our dissatisfaction with how Former Husband has
presented his evidence both to this Court and the trial court. We have
admonished that “[i]t is not the responsibility of the Court to dig through
the record to locate the basis for a party’s argument.” Mech v. Brazilian
Waxing By Sisters, Inc., 349 So. 3d 453, 454 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing
Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1983)). Former Husband is on notice that he should not again send
the trial court “an unorganized package of [thousands] of pages of
documents” to prove he complied with his discovery obligations. See
Reaction Rehab, LLC v. Fletcher, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1746 (Fla. 3d DCA
Aug. 30, 2023).

                                Conclusion

    We once again “recognize the difficulty of balancing the desire of parties
to ‘have their day in court’ with the necessity of the courts to keep to a
schedule and accommodate the similar desire of other parties.” Julia, 146
So. 3d at 522. However, because the trial court here gave Former Wife the
opportunity to present testimony at the hearing and Former Husband
requested the same opportunity, the trial court abused its discretion in
failing to allow Former Husband to present testimony and evidence at the
hearing (or a continuation of the hearing). We therefore reverse the trial
court’s order finding Former Husband in contempt and striking his
petition for modification and remand for the trial court to continue the
hearing.

   Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

                            *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      5