From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weaver v. Huss

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 9, 2016
No. J-S54007-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)

Opinion

J-S54007-16 No. 1142 WDA 2015

09-09-2016

JAMES P. WEAVER, JR. Appellee v. AMY NEAL HUSS, Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered June 25, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2010-10883 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Amy Neal Huss (Mother) appeals from the trial court's June 25, 2015 order finding her in contempt with regard to eight out of nine contempt petitions filed by James P. Weaver, Jr. (Father), relating to her ongoing failure to comply with numerous court orders that arose in the context of litigation about custody of the parties' child, A.J.W. (Child) (born in November of 2010). As a sanction against Mother, the court awarded Father $10,960 in reimbursement for counsel fees. After review, we affirm.

"When considering an appeal from an [o]rder holding a party in contempt for failure to comply with a court [o]rder, our scope of review is narrow: we will reverse only upon a showing the court abused its discretion." Harcar v. Harcar , 982 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Hopkins v. Byes , 954 A.2d 654, 655 (Pa. Super. 2008)). We also must consider that:

Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process. The contempt power is essential to the preservation of the court's authority and
prevents the administration of justice from falling into disrepute. When reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellate court must place great reliance upon the discretion of the trial judge.

Langendorfer v. Spearman , 797 A.2d 303, 307 (Pa. Super. 2002) (quoting Garr v. Peters , 773 A.2d 183, 189 (Pa. Super. 2001)). "The court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason." Godfrey v. Godfrey , 894 A.2d 776, 780 (Pa. Super. 2006). Additionally, "[i]n proceedings for civil contempt of court, the general rule is that the burden of proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate, by [a] preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is in noncompliance with a court order." Lachat v. Hinchliffe , 769 A.2d 481, 488 (Pa. Super. 2001). However, a mere showing of noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is never sufficient alone to prove civil contempt." Id. Moreover, we recognize that:

To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must prove certain distinct elements: (1) that the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

Stahl v. Redcay , 897 A.2d 478, 489 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Habjan v. Habjan , 73 A.3d 630, 637 (Pa. Super. 2013).

In her brief to this Court on appeal, Mother lists the following issues for our review:

I. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by finding Mother in civil contempt multiple times for violations of two (2) [o]rders of [c]ourt when there were no purge conditions stated or findings that Mother violated clear and specific provisions of the [o]rders and that Mother acted with wrongful intent?

II. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding Father $10,960 in counsel fees for Mother's civil contempt without making a determination as to the
reasonableness of the fees as it related to the various [c]ontempt [m]otions?

III. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding counsel fees years after the complained of contemptuous behavior?
Mother's brief at 4.

In the context of our review of this case, we note that Mother alleges that the court never stated whether it found Mother in civil or criminal contempt, that the court did not state whether the counsel fee award was a sanction or was intended as a reimbursement to Father for costs of litigation, and that the court failed to explain why its June 25, 2015 order finding contempt was delayed by fifteen months after the custody trial was concluded in March of 2014. We suggest that Mother review the court's opinion and particularly note that the court identifies its actions as one in civil contempt. Trial Court's Opinion, 1/6/16, at 10. The court also explains that the award is a "reimbursement for counsel fees as a sanction." Id. at 1. Additionally, the court relates that "by agreement of the parties, court action on these contempt petitions was ultimately deferred until the conclusion of the custody hearings." Id. at 1-2.

Our review of this matter has encompassed the certified record, the parties' briefs, the pertinent law, and the Honorable John F. DiSalle's opinion, dated January 6, 2016. Having concluded that Judge DiSalle's opinion properly disposes of the issues Mother raises on appeal, we adopt Judge DiSalle's opinion and affirm the June 25, 2015 order for the reasons stated therein.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/9/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Weaver v. Huss

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 9, 2016
No. J-S54007-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)
Case details for

Weaver v. Huss

Case Details

Full title:JAMES P. WEAVER, JR. Appellee v. AMY NEAL HUSS, Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 9, 2016

Citations

No. J-S54007-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 9, 2016)