Sunset Cove cites an order holding Santiago in civil contempt, which found that the sale to Tsokos took place while Sunset Cove's motion to enforce the final judgment was pending. According to the response, an order of contempt against Santiago was rendered just days before Sunset Cove filed its verified motion for order of contempt against third parties. 3 . The trial court's finding in the order to show cause that Tsokos had actual knowledge of Sunset Cove's motion to enforce the final judgment appears to be based on Sunset Cove's argument at the hearing on the motion for contempt. Sunset Cove maintained that it filed the motion to enforce the final judgment prior to Tsokos’s motion to intervene in the underlying lawsuit. 4 . See Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So.2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c)
holding that an order to show cause was deficient when it merely stated that the defendant had violated a prior court order and did not include the facts that purportedly constituted the criminal contempt holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order holding that a juvenile defendant could not be found in indirect criminal contempt where defendant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties holding that an order was not final where the order stated that the court would end the cause after a final accounting was reviewed and approved but did not say that the cause was ended reasoning that this language indicates that the trial court considered that the cause was still open