Opinion
No. 1970 C.D. 2014
07-09-2015
Jackson Township Supervisors v. Estate of Catherine Gresh, Dennis Gresh, Administrator, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
Dennis Gresh (Gresh) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County (trial court) that found him in contempt of court and sentenced him to 60 days in county jail. Gresh contends the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing or identifying the reasons for the finding of contempt. Upon review, we vacate the contempt order and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Gresh is the administrator of his mother's estate, which includes 2.5 acres of land (property) located in the agricultural district of Jackson Township (Township), Cambria County, Pennsylvania. The Township filed a complaint for injunction against Gresh for alleged violations of various Township ordinances governing storage and disposal of solid waste, prohibitions on maintaining nuisances, and zoning. Specifically, the Township alleged the property contains the following offending items: business storage or warehousing of equipment; a partially collapsed residence; unregistered and uninspected motor vehicles in various states of disrepair; scrap metal, lumber, restaurant equipment and other junk; and, a temporary storage building. The Township described the property as an unlicensed junkyard and a nuisance.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an order in August 2011 directing Gresh to comply with the ordinances and remove the offending items from the property by October 2011. When Gresh did not comply, the Township filed a contempt petition in November 2011. After a hearing, the trial court found Gresh in contempt, but it imposed no penalty based on the fact he made some progress to comply. The trial court allowed Gresh to purge himself of contempt by completing his efforts to comply with the court's order.
At the end of December 2011, the Township filed a second motion for contempt. After an evidentiary hearing, in January 2012, the trial court determined Gresh did not purge himself of contempt and sentenced him to a week in county jail. The trial court deferred the sentence pending a view of the property. In addition, the trial court ordered Gresh to: properly dispose of certain vehicles on the property; move other vehicles 30 feet away from the road; and, provide titles and current registrations for the vehicles.
In September 2012, the trial court held a status of contempt hearing to determine whether Gresh made any compliance progress. Gresh did not appear. The trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Authorities apprehended Gresh in June 2014. In September 2014, the trial court held a contempt hearing.
At the hearing, counsel for the parties argued their respective positions. Gresh offered to present evidence to show compliance efforts. More particularly, he attempted to show registrations for the vehicles on the property, construction of a storage building on the property, and a building permit application to construct another storage structure on the property. Tr. Ct. Contempt Hearing, 9/24/14, Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 4. However, the trial court did not receive any sworn testimony or evidence. Counsel for the Township disputed full compliance, but attested Gresh made significant progress. Id. at 4-5. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered a contempt order.
Gresh appealed to this Court. The trial court directed him to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Gresh complained that the trial court erred by not having a full evidentiary hearing on the contempt or specifying what he did that constituted contempt. In response, the trial court issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion in which it agreed with Gresh and requested this Court remand for a full evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, Gresh argues the trial court erred by not having a full evidentiary hearing on the contempt petition. Despite his request to present testimony and other evidence, the trial court only heard arguments from counsel. In addition, Gresh contends the trial court erred by not rendering any factual findings or otherwise identifying exactly what Gresh did or did not do that constituted contempt.
Our review of a trial court's contempt order is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Lubisky, 88 A.3d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). --------
"Courts possess an inherent power to enforce their orders by way of the power of contempt." Commonwealth v. Bowden, 838 A.2d 740, 760 (Pa. 2003).
The objective of a civil contempt proceeding is remedial and judicial sanctions are employed to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order, and in some instances to compensate the complainant for loss sustained. In civil contempt cases, the complaining party has the burden of proving non-compliance with the court order by a preponderance of the evidence. To be punished for civil contempt, a party must have violated a court order.Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204, 1207-08 (Pa. Super. 2003).
The court's power to impose punishment for contempt is subject to procedural safeguards and due process rights of the person accused of contempt. Schnabel Assocs. v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Phila., 487 A.2d 1327 (Pa. Super. 1985); Rouse Phila. Inc. v. Ad Hoc '78, 417 A.2d 1248, 1257 (Pa. Super. 1979). Generally, in order to hold a person in civil contempt, the court must undertake: (1) a rule to show cause; (2) an answer and hearing; (3) a rule absolute; (4) a hearing on the contempt citation; and, (5) an adjudication of contempt. Epstein v. Saul Ewing, LLP, 7 A.3d 303 (Pa. Super. 2010).
However, fulfillment of all five factors is not mandated. Wood; Diamond v. Diamond, 792 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 2002) "[W]hen the contempt proceedings are predicated on a violation of a court order that followed a full hearing, 'due process requires no more than notice of the violations alleged and an opportunity for explanation and defense.'" Diamond, 792 A.2d at 601 (quoting Schnabel, 487 A.2d at 1334). In other words, "the essential due process requisites for a finding of civil contempt are notice and an opportunity to be heard." Schnabel, 487 A.2d at 1334. We have found a clear abuse of discretion when the trial court makes a "determination based on a record where no testimony was taken and no evidence entered Wood, 827 A.2d at 1208 (quoting Chrysczanavicz v. Chrysczanavicz, 796 A.2d 366, 369 (Pa. Super. 2002)).
Here, the trial court determined Gresh failed to purge himself of the contempt of the court's prior orders. The trial court entered its contempt finding after hearing oral argument, without affording Gresh the opportunity to testify and present other evidence. The trial court did not make any factual findings in support of its order or otherwise identify Gresh's contemptuous conduct. Upon review, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by finding Gresh in contempt without first holding an evidentiary hearing. See Wood; Chrysczanavicz. Indeed, the trial court recognized in its 1925(a) opinion that a full hearing was necessary. Tr. Ct., Slip Op., 12/19/14, at 1. Thus, we vacate the trial court's determination of civil contempt and remand for an evidentiary hearing and a decision that contains findings of fact.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2015, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge