Opinion
J-A27041-16 No. 706 EDA 2016 No. 829 EDA 2016
10-14-2016
MICHAEL LIPESKY AND LESLIE DELL v. JAMES MAHAN Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order February 18, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2014-03210 BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee ("Appellant"), James Mahan, appeals pro se from the order entered on February 18, 2016, in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant's petition for clarification and reconsideration of the court's January 29, 2016 order granting, in part, Appellees/Cross-Appellants' ("Appellees"), Michael Lipesky and Leslie Dell, petition for contempt. Appellees filed a cross-appeal from the order entered on February 18, 2016, which failed to address Appellees' request for additional attorney's fees. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court's January 29, 2016 findings of fact and April 25, 2016 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/25/16, at 1-2, 8; Findings of Fact, 1/29/16, at 1-10.
On appeal, Appellant alleges various claims concerning the trial court, including that the court erred in its January 29, 2016 findings of fact and contempt order, and that the court erred by granting attorney's fees to Appellees. See Appellant's brief at 2-10. On cross-appeal, Appellees argue they should be awarded additional attorney's fees incurred while responding to Appellant's pro se motion for clarification and reconsideration. Appellee's Brief at 9. No relief is due.
Appellant's pro se brief fails to conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), 2116(a), 2119. Nevertheless, we will address Appellant's issues as gleaned from the trial court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 2. --------
"In reviewing a trial court's finding on a contempt petition, we are limited to determining whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. This Court must place great reliance on the sound discretion of the trial judge when reviewing an order of contempt." Flannery v. Iberti , 763 A.2d 927, 929 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citations omitted).
After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the decision of the trial court, we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 2-9 (holding: (Appeal) Appellant's claims regarding the court's factual errors are without merit, as the court's January 29, 2016 findings of fact are based on competent evidence from the record; the court did not err by allowing testimony of the August 2015 paving installation during the October 13, 2015 contempt hearing because a conference was held on September 14, 2015, at which the parties discussed this paving installation; following the September 14, 2015 conference, the contempt hearing was continued until October 13, 2015, to allow the parties to prepare for argument on Appellees' contempt petition and whether the August 2015 paving installation complied with the parties' March 27, 2015 agreement concerning the easement; Appellant, therefore, cannot claim prejudice from the testimony regarding the August 2015 paving installation because, following the conference, Appellant had sufficient notice that the events subsequent to Appellees' filing of the contempt petition would be addressed at the contempt hearing; the court did not misinterpret the requirements of the March 27, 2015 agreement because Appellant's counsel stated immediately thereafter that Appellant would pave "that portion of the easement," which referred to the entire disturbed area of the easement; Appellant has waived his claim regarding the award of attorney's fees to Appellees because Appellant did not object to the award before, during, or after the contempt hearing; the court was permitted to clarify its January 29, 2016 contempt order because it did so within thirty days and before Appellant filed his appeal; Appellant was aware of the court's potential to clarify the contempt order, as he had filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration, which was granted as to his request for clarification; (Cross-Appeal) Appellees' request for additional attorney's fees was not properly brought before the court because Appellees did not file a petition requesting additional attorney's fees, they did not file a counter-motion for reconsideration requesting such fees, and the court never entered or filed an order denying Appellees' request for additional fees from which Appellees could have filed their cross-appeal; Appellees improperly requested additional fees in their "new matter," which is not a substitute for a petition requesting such fees; and Appellees were not required to respond to Appellant's motion for clarification and reconsideration and incur additional legal fees). Accordingly, we affirm the court's February 18, 2016 order.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/14/2016
Image materials not available for display.