J. S22031/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JONA E. MAIOLO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
JOSEPH R. MAIOLO, :
:
Appellant : No. 1190 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered June 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Civil Division No(s): 14-20,738
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 05, 2016
Appellant, Joseph R. Maiolo (“Husband”), appeals from the order of the
trial court granting the Motion for Sanctions that Appellee, Jona E. Maiolo
(“Wife”), filed and holding Husband in contempt of court. We affirm in part
and quash the appeal in part.
Factual and Procedural History
Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce against Husband on June 3, 2014,
after four years of marriage. See Complaint, 6/3/14, at 1. On September
26, 2014,1 the trial court ordered Wife to continue to maintain health
insurance benefits for Husband and ordered Husband to reimburse Wife 50%
of the policy premiums (“September 26, 2014 Order”).
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
This order was entered on the docket on October 7, 2014.
J.S22031/16
On October 1, 2014, Wife served multiple requests for documents and
interrogatories on Husband. Trial Ct. Op., 8/31/15, at 5. Husband did not
provide a response to the requests or file any objections to the requests. On
November 26, 2014, Wife’s counsel filed a Motion to Compel. Id.
On December 4, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the Motion to
Compel. At the hearing, Husband did not raise any objections to the
requests and the trial court granted Wife’s Motion to Compel and directed
Husband to provide full and complete responses to Wife’s discovery requests
within 30 days (“December 4, 2014 Order”). Id. Once again, Husband
failed not only to object to the requests, but also to provide the full and
complete responses to the request. Id.
As a result of Husband’s failure to respond in any meaningful way to
the December 4, 2014 Order, Wife filed a Motion to Compel/Motion for
Sanctions (“Motion for Sanctions”) on May 1, 2015.
In Count I of the Motion for Sanctions, Wife claimed that Husband
failed to provide her with any additional documents and consequently, was
in contempt of the December 4, 2014 Order. She averred that although her
counsel received partial answers to the discovery, most answers were “to be
provided” and Husband had not provided any meaningful information in
response to the December 4, 2014 Order. Mot. to Compel, 5/1/15, at 1
(unpaginated).
-2-
J.S22031/16
In Count II of the Motion for Sanctions, Wife averred that Husband
violated the September 26, 2014 Order by failing to pay Wife 50% of the
health insurance premiums for the policies that Wife maintains for the
parties. Id. at 2 (unpaginated). Wife asserted that Husband pays her less
than 50% of the premiums because he arbitrarily deducts an amount that he
believes would be Wife’s tax benefit from the amount he owes her. Id.
Wife also claimed that Husband sends her the reimbursement check on
the last day of the month, and not on the 15 th day of the month, resulting in
delayed payment, and, once, insufficient funds. Id.
Wife, therefore, asked the trial court to find Husband in contempt,
enforce its order that Husband reimburse her the full 50% of the premium
on or before the 15th of each month, and award her reasonable attorney’s
fees. Id. at 3 (unpaginated).
On May 8, 2015, the court gave the Husband thirty days’ notice that
the court would hear the Wife’s Motion for Sanctions on June 11, 2015. Trial
Ct. Op., 8/31/15, at 2. On June 10, 2015 at 4:14 PM, late in the afternoon
on the day before the hearing, Husband’s counsel sent a fax to the trial court
claiming that Husband would be “out of town” on the next day and
requesting that the court continue the hearing. Id. The trial court denied
-3-
J.S22031/16
Husband’s request, and held the hearing as scheduled in Husband’s
absence.2
Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order on June 16,
2015, granting Wife’s Motion for Sanctions as to Count I and finding
Husband in contempt of the December 4, 2014 Order requiring him to
provide full and complete answers to Wife’s discovery requests (“June 16,
2015 Order”). The court also ordered Husband to pay counsel fees to Wife’s
counsel in the amount of $500, unless Husband produced to Wife a series of
enumerated documents.3 Trial Ct. Order, 6/16/15, at 1-2 (unpaginated).
The court also granted Wife’s Motion for Sanctions as to Count II,
finding Husband in contempt of the October 26, 2014 Order, which required
him to reimburse Wife 50% of the parties’ health insurance premiums. The
court found that husband owed Wife $226.45 and ordered Husband to remit
to Wife this amount within 30 days. The court did not sanction Husband for
this contempt.
On July 10, 2015, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal of the June 16,
2015 Order. Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
2
Husband’s counsel appeared at the hearing on Husband’s behalf.
3
The court ordered that this sanction would be suspended if Husband
provided full and complete discovery responses on or before July 17, 2015.
The record does not reflect, and Husband does not claim, that he provided
the discovery responses on or before that date.
-4-
J.S22031/16
Issues on Appeal
Husband raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying
[Husband’s] motion for continuance which prevented
him from attending the hearing to present testimony
and evidence to the court relevant to [Wife’s] petition
for contempt.
2. Whether the trial court erred by finding [Husband]
in contempt for failing to provide documentation
pursuant to a discovery request by [Wife] when [Wife]
was in possession of the information [Husband] needed
to properly respond to the discovery request.
3. Whether the trial court erred in making the
determination of contempt when [Husband] had already
filed a request for a new determination of his share of
the health insurance premium at the same time he filed
a petition for spousal support.
4. Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly
calculate the tax benefit to [Wife] when determining the
amount to be paid by [Husband] for his share of the
contribution to health insurance provided by [Wife’s]
employer.
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Legal Analysis
Before addressing the merits of Husband’s issues, we must first
consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. It is well-
settled that an order declaring a party in contempt and imposing sanctions is
immediately appealable. Takosky v. Henning, 906 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa.
Super. 2006). However, if the trial court does not impose sanctions or
-5-
J.S22031/16
imprisonment, an order declaring a party in contempt is interlocutory and
not appealable. Id.
The trial court’s June 16, 2015 Order found Husband in contempt of its
December 4, 2014 Order requiring Husband to provide full and complete
answers to Wife’s discovery requests and imposed a monetary sanction on
Husband for his failure to comply. Husband’s appeal from this portion of the
June 16, 2015 Order is, therefore, proper. Id.
In contrast, the portion of the June 16, 2015 Order that found
Husband in contempt of the September 24, 2014 Order requiring Husband to
reimburse Wife for health insurance premiums she paid on Husband’s behalf
does not impose a sanction against Husband. Accordingly, the appeal of this
portion of the June 16, 2015 Order is interlocutory and we quash Husband’s
appeal as to these issues. Id.
Now we turn to the substance of the portion of June 16, 2015 Order
that imposed sanctions on Husband for failing to respond to discovery
requests. Husband first argues that the trial court erred in not granting his
counsel’s request for a continuance of the hearing on the Motion for
Sanctions that his counsel made at 4:14 PM on the day before the hearing.
Appellant’s Brief at 10. Husband acknowledges that his counsel made the
request with short notice, but argues that he made the request as soon as
Husband became aware of his scheduling conflict. Id. Husband further
-6-
J.S22031/16
argues that Wife would not have been prejudiced by a continuance. Id. at
10-11.
In particular, Husband disputes the trial court’s characterization in its
Pa.R.A.P 1925(a) Opinion that Wife would have been prejudiced if the
hearing were delayed, claiming: (1) that the documents requested by Wife
were already mostly in her possession; and (2) a hearing on the proper
amount of Husband’s health insurance contribution was scheduled for June
29, 2015, and could have been resolved at that time. Id. at 10-11. We
disagree.
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a continuance for an abuse
of discretion. In re: J.K., 825 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2003). “An
abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment, and, on appeal,
the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the
record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable,
or the results of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Baysmore v.
Brownstein, 771 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Here, Husband had more than 30 days’ notice of the hearing on Wife’s
Motion for Sanctions. Husband faxed his request for a continuance late in
the afternoon prior to the hearing and without explanation for his being “out
of town.”
We note that Husband’s general statement of being “out of town”
faxed to the trial court late in the afternoon on the day before the hearing,
-7-
J.S22031/16
without more, is in and of itself a proper reason to deny the request for
continuance. This late request inconveniences not only the other parties and
witnesses, but also the court’s schedule.
A late request for a continuance deprives the trial court of the
opportunity to use its time in court effectively and efficiently. The trial court
intentionally notifies parties of a hearing thirty days before the hearing to
give the parties enough time to coordinate their schedules and to permit the
trial court to schedule another matter if the parties are unavailable.
In this case, the trial court properly focused on the fact that delaying
the hearing would prejudice Wife’s interests in that the harm alleged by Wife
in her Motion “would have continued to affect Wife during the course of any
rescheduling.” Trial Ct. Op. at 3. We conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it determined “[t]he late nature of Husband’s
request without cause was manifestly unreasonable[,]” and denied
Husband’s request. Id.
In his second issue, Husband argues that the trial court erred in
finding him in contempt for failing to produce documents pursuant to Wife’s
discovery requests and the December 4, 2014 Order. Husband maintains
that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt because
he did not willfully and intentionally disobey the trial court’s order.
Appellant’s Brief at 12. Husband did not challenge the trial court’s
imposition of sanctions against him.
-8-
J.S22031/16
We review the trial court’s finding of contempt, and sanctions it
imposes, for a misapplication of the law or clear abuse of discretion.
MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892 (Pa. Super. 2012). The
burden of proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate that a party
is in contempt of a court order. Id. To prevail on a contempt claim, the
complaining party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1)
the contemnor had notice of the order that has allegedly been violated; (2)
that the contempt was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with
wrongful intent. Id.
Here, the trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion that it entered
the December 4, 2014 Order, granting Wife’s Motion to Compel and directing
Husband to provide full and complete responses to Wife’s discovery
requests. Trial Ct. Op. at 5. Husband’s counsel received a copy of the
order. Id. Husband did not object to the requests, but simply failed to
produce the requested documents. Id. Husband has not argued that he
provided the documents. Id. The trial court concluded that Husband acted
willfully and with wrongful intent and was, therefore, in contempt of the
December 4, 2014 Order. Id. We agree.
Our review of the record confirms the trial court’s finding that
Husband’s failure to comply with the December 4, 2014 Order was willful
and intentional.
-9-
J.S22031/16
Husband has argued on appeal that he cannot provide the information
the Wife requested because the information is either in Wife’s possession or
is protected by Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) regulations.
The court finds these explanations disingenuous. If Husband, in fact,
believed that Wife had the information or IRS regulations protect the
information, Husband had every opportunity to file the appropriate motion
with the court. In fact, at the hearing on the discovery requests on
December 4, 2014, Husband did not mention either of these arguments.
Moreover, Husband gave a contrary answer in his responses that the
information was “to be provided.” Record at 21-23. Husband was aware of
the December 4, 2014 Order and failed to respond to it in a meaningful way
even after having opportunities to object or respond. Therefore, the trial
court properly concluded that Husband willfully and intentionally disregarded
the Order of December 4, 2014 and that Husband’s dilatory behavior will not
be tolerated.
Based on the evidence of record, we conclude that the trial court acted
within its discretion in finding Husband in contempt and assessing sanctions
against Husband.
- 10 -
J.S22031/16
Order affirmed in part, appeal quashed in part. Case remanded.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/5/2016
- 11 -