Opinion
J-S50016-17 No. 1851 EDA 2016 No. 3829 EDA 2016
10-11-2017
BRENDA I. DREISBACH v. ANTONIO MONTEFUSCO APPEAL OF: JOSEPH P. MAHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2015-5404 Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Civil Division at No(s): C-48-CV-2015-5404 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MOULTON, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.:
Joseph P. Maher appeals, pro se, from the May 10, 2016 and November 2, 2016 orders holding him in contempt of court in relation to his representation of Brenda I. Dreisbach ("Mother") in the underlying custody/relocation action between Mother and Antonio Montefusco and imposing two separate fines of $500 on Maher for contempt. We affirm.
On March 6, 2016, this Court granted the motion filed by Maher to consolidate his appeals at Docket Nos. 1851 EDA 2016 and 3829 EDA 2016.
At docket 1851 EDA 2016, Maher appeals from a trial court order finding him in contempt for failure to appear at a hearing. The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of the appeal in its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt and incorporate herein. Memorandum Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), Docket No. 1851 EDA 2016, 8/31/16, at 1-4 ("1925(a) Op. at 1851 EDA 2016").
At docket 3829 EDA 2016, Maher appeals from a trial court order finding him in contempt for filing with this Court a response to an order to show cause on behalf of a client after the trial court ordered him to engage in no further activity on behalf of the client. The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of the appeal in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt and incorporate herein. Memorandum Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 2/3/17, at 1-6 ("1925(a) Op. at 3829 EDA 2016").
Maher raises the following issues on appeal:
A. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in that the trial court did not have subject matter juris[di]ction of the alleged misconduct pursuant to Rule of Prof. Conduct, 8.4(d), Article V, §10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution & Pa. Rules of Disciplinary Enfor[c]ement 103 and 201.Maher's Br. at 4-5.
B. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion by refusing to allow Maher to call [Mother] as a witness in the second contempt proceeding on October 21, 2016 based upon a blanket allegation by Attorney Cook that there existed an attorney client privilege to prevent her from test[i]fying?
C. Whether the trial court comm[i]tted an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in that he should not have been excluded from continuing to represent [Mother] particularly in her contempt appeal given that any record had already been made and he had not testified in any matter in prior proceedings in this case as it related to contempt issues?
D. Whether the trial court comm[i]tted an error of law and/or abuse of discretion in that Maher should not have been ex[cl]uded from the appeal in 2200 EDA 2016 [sic] given that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to remove him from the appeal which he had previously filed on behalf of [Mother] and no rationale pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701 existed to preclude him from continuing to prosecute [Mother's] contempt appeal?
Maher raised four issues in his 1925(b) statement at docket 1851 EDA 2016 and ten issues in his 1925(b) statement at docket 3829 EDA 2016, all of which the trial court addressed in its 1925(a) opinions. On appeal, Maher raises only the four issues referenced above.
Generally, whether a trial court possesses subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Orman v. Mortgage I.T., 118 A.3d 403, 406 (Pa.Super. 2015); S.K.C. v. J.L.C., 94 A.3d 402, 408 (Pa.Super. 2014). Further, we review a trial court's order regarding the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Cascardo , 981 A.2d 245, 249 (Pa.Super. 2009).
Here, the trial court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the May 6, 2016 and October 21, 2016 contempt orders. 1925(a) Op. at 1851 EDA 2016, at 6-7; 1925(a) Op. at 3829 EDA 2016, at 9-10. Further, the trial court concluded that: (1) it did not err in refusing to allow Maher to call Mother as a witness at the October 21, 2016 hearing, 1925(a) Op. at 3829 EDA 2016, at 16-17; (2) it had jurisdiction to preclude Maher from representing Mother even though Mother had a pending appeal, id. at 15; and (3) Maher waived his claim that the trial court erred in precluding Maher from representing Mother by failing to file an appeal from the July 22, 2017 order precluding him from representing Mother, id. at 15-16. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Jennifer R. Sletvold, we conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. We agree with and adopt the trial court's reasoning.
Further, to the extent Maher claims the trial court violated his due process rights, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that it did not violate Maher's rights and agree with and adopt its reasoning. See 1925(a) Op. at 1851 EDA 2016, at 7-14; 1925(a) Op. at 3829 EDA 2016, at 10-13. --------
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/11/2017
Image materials not available for display.