Cresswell, J. v. Cresswell, S.
565 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Cresswell sued his ex-wife and others, alleging they unlawfully entered his property and removed personalty, including an International diesel farm tractor with attachments; he sought return or damages (~$47,105).
- Cresswell and defendants Martin Meade Kobsik and Martin Phillip Kobsik reached a settlement read into the record and entered as a court order on January 17, 2017: defendants would pay $2,500 and permit Cresswell to retrieve the International tractor and attachments in defendants’ possession.
- Cresswell later petitioned to adjudicate the Kobsiks for civil contempt, claiming they failed to return all “attachments” he believed were covered by the settlement.
- At an evidentiary hearing, Cresswell identified additional attachments at the Kobsiks’ residence that were compatible with his International tractor but which the Kobsiks said were for a different (Kioti) tractor they purchased later.
- The trial court found the settlement limited to the International tractor and its attachments (i.e., items previously owned by Cresswell) and credited Kobsik’s testimony that certain attachments were acquired for a Kioti tractor — denying the contempt petition.
- Cresswell appealed, raising contract-interpretation, credibility, and mutual-mistake/voiding arguments; the Superior Court affirmed, and declined to reach the mutual-mistake claim as waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement/order required return of all attachments in defendants’ possession (not just those for the International tractor) | Cresswell: the plain phrase “International tractor and attachments in Defendants’ possession” includes all attachments in their possession and thus all should be returned | Kobsiks: the phrase refers only to attachments for the International tractor (items previously owned by Cresswell) | Court: settlement interpreted to mean attachments corresponding to the International tractor; no contempt |
| Whether defendants were in contempt for keeping attachments allegedly compatible with the International tractor | Cresswell: attachments observed at defendants’ residence were part of the settlement and withheld | Kobsiks: those attachments were purchased/intended for a Kioti tractor acquired later, not part of the settlement | Court: court credited Kobsik’s testimony; no contempt |
| Whether the trial court erred in credibility findings about Kobsik’s intent to use attachments with the Kioti tractor | Cresswell: testimony was inconsistent and attachments could be used with International tractor, so credibility findings were erroneous | Kobsiks: trial court correctly weighed evidence and found testimony credible | Court: credibility is for trial court; findings were reasonable and not disturbed |
| Whether the settlement should be voided for mutual mistake about scope (inclusion of attachments) | Cresswell: parties mutually misunderstood that “attachments in possession” meant all attachments, so settlement void | Kobsiks: dispute was resolved and order unambiguous as to returning Cresswell’s property; issue not raised below | Court: claim waived because not raised in trial court; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for contempt and abuse of discretion)
- Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'l Hosp., 142 A.3d 38 (Pa. Super. 2016) (complaining party bears burden to prove civil contempt)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Schneider, 906 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (settlement agreements construed like contracts; parties’ intent controls)
- Gutteridge v. J3 Energy Grp., Inc., 165 A.3d 908 (Pa. Super. 2017) (factfinder free to accept or reject evidence; appellate court defers to credibility determinations)