J. S71010/15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RHONDA L. BRILLA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
WILLIAM M. BRILLA, : No. 417 WDA 2015
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order, February 6, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County
Civil Division at No. 2002-1648-CD
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND OTT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 1, 2016
William M. Brilla appeals, pro se, from the order entered February 6,
2015, by the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, dismissing his
petition for contempt of custody against his ex-wife, Rhonda L. Brilla. We
affirm.
The trial court filed no further opinion in this matter, but relied upon
its February 5, 2015 opinion and order. (Trial court’s correspondence to
deputy prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 4/24/15;
R.R. 321.) That opinion and order summarized the facts and procedural
history as follows:
Presently before the Court is a Petition for
Contempt of Custody Order filed by [appellant]. A
hearing was held on January 12, 2015.
J. S71010/15
[Appellant] has alleged in his petition that
[appellee] is in contempt for willfully violating the
joint legal custody provision set forth in the Court’s
Order of April 20, 2012. [Appellant] alleges that
[appellee] is in contempt for willfully failing to notify,
include or otherwise acknowledge [appellant’s]
custodial rights as it pertains to any decision
regarding the education of the minor child, [W.D.].
[Appellant] and [appellee] have joint legal
custody of the minor child, [W.D.].
“Legal custody shall be defined as the legal
right to make major decisions affecting the best
interests of the children including, but not limited to,
medical, religious and educational decisions, and that
each parent shall have equal access to any and all
medical, dental, school and legal records. Medical,
dental and other professional providers, as well as
school administrations, shall accept a copy of this
Order as authorization to release documentation to
either parent. It is also understood by both parties
that they shall communicate fully with each other to
assure all directives pertaining to the children from
physicians, dentists, mental health providers and
teachers are followed absolutely and that all
information pertaining to any prescriptions for the
children are exchanged between the parties.”
Following the taking of testimony and
presentation of the issues before this Court, the
Court is satisfied that [appellee] is not in contempt
for violation of the legal custody provision.
Testimony presented set forth that all [appellee] did
was take the minor child to an educational facility,
Mercersberg [sic] Academy, and tour said facility. At
no time were any decisions made concerning the
education of W.D. [Appellant] states at hearing that
[appellee] failed to notify him of the tour of
Mercersberg [sic] Academy and, as a result, she was
in violation of the legal custody provision. This Court
disagrees. No decisions were made and no
documentation was signed by [appellee]. As such,
[appellee] is not in contempt of the Court’s Order.
-2-
J. S71010/15
Trial court opinion and order, 2/5/15 at 1-3.
Appellant frames his statement of questions involved as follows:
1. Did the trial court display it’s [sic] utter
contempt and ill-will [sic] for the [appellant] by
declaring it’s [sic] intent to rule against him
based on dislike rather than based on the
evidence?
2. Is that act, and the manner in which it was
decided, an abuse of discretion?
Appellant’s brief at 5.
Appellant presents only one issue for our review: Whether the trial
court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s petition for contempt
because it made a statement at the custody hearing that appellant viewed
as prejudicial?
In considering an appeal from a contempt order, we place great
reliance upon the trial court’s discretion. Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892, 894-
895 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). As such, appellate review of a
contempt finding is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion. Id. (citation omitted).
Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with
law on facts and circumstances before the trial court
after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the
court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue
for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its
discretion in a manner lacking reason. Similarly, the
trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow
legal procedure.
-3-
J. S71010/15
Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, we will reverse an order granting or
denying a civil contempt petition only upon a showing that the trial court
misapplied the law or exercised its discretion in a manner that lacked
reason. MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892 (Pa.Super. 2012)
(citation omitted).
Generally, in civil contempt proceedings, the complainant bears the
burden of proving that the defendant failed to comply with a court order.
MacDougall, 49 A.3d at 892 (citation omitted). To sustain a finding of civil
contempt, the complainant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that (1) the contemnor had notice of the order that she alleges the
contemnor disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the alleged violation was
volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted with wrongful intent. Id. (citation
omitted).
Additionally, we note that this court may quash or dismiss an appeal if
the appellant fails to substantially conform to the briefing requirements set
forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Karn v. Quick &
Reilly Inc., 912 A.2d 329, 335 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations omitted).
Appellate arguments that fail to adhere to these rules may be considered
waived, and arguments that are not appropriately developed, including those
where a party fails to cite to any authority to support a contention, are
waived. Id. at 336 (citation omitted).
-4-
J. S71010/15
Here, appellant advances no argument that he sustained his burden of
proving that appellee’s act of taking their son to tour a school violated the
custody order and that the trial court’s denial of his petition was, therefore,
not supported by the record. Additionally, appellant advances no argument
that the trial court misapplied the law, exercised its discretion in a manner
that lacked reason, or failed to follow legal procedure when it denied
appellant’s petition for contempt. Rather, appellant complains about a
statement that the trial court made to him at the contempt hearing that the
appellant believes was prejudicial.1 (Appellant’s brief at 6.) Appellant
1
The following colloquy took place:
APPELLANT: Well, Your Honor, I think this is just
pretty much typical of the way [appellee] handles
custody. She fails to inform me. She fails to include
me. She just does whatever she wants to do and
she’s been emboldened to do so by this Court’s
failure to ever find her in contempt.
THE COURT: Well, you know what, [appellant], you
just -- you just ruined any chances you had. Don’t
insult this Court, ever. Do I make myself clear?
APPELLANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Never insult this Court. In fact, I have
found her in contempt. If you look at your -- the
vast majority of your papers, I have found her in
contempt and I take exception to your statement
that this Court, it’s the Court’s fault that he’s never
held this person in contempt. I’ve not imposed
sanctions, but I have held her in contempt. This
hearing is over. I’ll make my decision.
Notes of testimony, 1/12/15 at 12.
-5-
J. S71010/15
contends that the statement, coupled with the court’s subsequent denial of
his petition, somehow constitute an abuse of discretion. Appellant cites no
legal support for his contention, and we know of none. Rather, our review of
the record reveals no abuse of discretion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/1/2016
-6-