A Florida appeals court has ruled against a Miami-Dade litigant. And it found committing fraud to cancel a former boss' vacation and sending expletive-ridden messages with foreboding Bible verses to their family members qualify as stalking.

The Third District Court of Appeal shared its determination Wednesday in an opinion affirming a lower court order. The case, Marchel Auguste vs. Christina Aguado, reached the appellate court after Marchel Auguste appealed the permanent injunction issued against her in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

The injunction was sought by Christina Aguado, who had previously hired Auguste to serve as her children's nanny. According to the Third DCA's opinion, Auguste was employed with Aguado and her family for approximately 10 months before her firing in June 2018.

Auguste purportedly began exhibiting erratic behavior just hours after she was fired by Aguado's husband.

"Later that night, a number of text messages were exchanged between Aguado, her husband and Auguste," the court said, noting the texts contained profanity and prompted Aguado to block her former employee's phone number.

However, Auguste was not dissuaded from making her dissatisfaction known.

Read the opinion:

"At one o'clock in the morning, Auguste contacted a cruise line with which the Aguados were scheduled to travel and cancelled their upcoming family vacation," the opinion said. The court explained Auguste was able to successfully impersonate her former employer because the responsibilities of her job — including picking up Aguado's children after school — gave her access to the family's personal information and daily schedules.

Later that same morning, Auguste emailed Aguado and called her a "raging psycho," a tactic the ex-babysitter expanded on in scope and reach just a few weeks later. Subsequent emails sent to Aguado, her husband and other family members incorporated biblical allusions and "spoke of death," according to the Third DCA.

"In the first email, [Auguste] quotes Psalms 28:3, saying 'Do not drag me away with the wicked,' " the opinion said. "Auguste refers to Aguado as 'evil' and states that she has many enemies. The email goes on to reference another Bible passage stating, 'Avenge not yourself, but rather give place unto wrath for it is written. Vengeance is mine. I will pay sayeth the Lord.' "

The appeals court added Auguste stopped emailing Aguado and her family "only after she was served with the trial court's temporary injunction."

The lower court made its decision to issue a permanent injunction against Auguste based on her unsettling messages as well as testimony from Aguado, her father and investigators. The injunction was "needed to protect [Aguado] and her family," according to the trial court.

Auguste's appeal contended not enough evidence had been submitted to sufficiently establish she stalked Aguado or caused her emotional distress. The appeal referred to Jones v. Jackson, a 2011 case in which the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a permanent injunction after finding the cited phone calls and text message "would not have caused a reasonable person substantial emotional distress," according to the Third DCA.

The appellate panel's opinion thoroughly rejected Auguste's argument, calling Jones v. Jackson "clearly distinguishable from the case before us."

"Aguado testified that Auguste's messages disturbed her," the court said. "She also testified that she feared for her safety and that of her family, as Auguste was aware of her family's schedule and whereabouts."

The Third DCA held the extensive testimony and evidence entered with the trial court made it "uniquely well-situated" to conclude "Auguste's conduct did not serve a legitimate purpose and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress."

Aguado's appellate counsel, Miami-based private practitioner Carlos A. Ziegenhirt, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Gilbert & Smallman partner Andrew J. Smallman represented Auguste in the Third DCA with Hollywood attorney Ryan Tables. Smallman said he was disappointed with the case's outcome.

"Obviously we wish the decision would've gone the other way, but we respect every court's decision," he said. Smallman noted Wednesday's opinion largely addressed the lower court's findings and not the appellate briefs.

"I think a lot of the ruling in this case stemmed from what happened in the trial," he said. " We thought the [trial] court didn't see enough evidence to make the finding, but obviously the judge thought she did."

Smallman said he will consult with his client to discuss the possibility of motioning for a rehearing.

Related stories: