Dreisbach, B. v. Montefusco, A.
1851 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Brenda Dreisbach (Mother) and Antonio Montefusco (Father) litigated custody/relocation and related matters in Northampton County; Joseph P. Maher was counsel who later became a controversial third‑party participant.
- On April 29, 2016, Maher and Mother did not appear at a scheduled hearing after Maher twice requested continuances; the court proceeded, found Mother in contempt, and issued a Rule to Show Cause as to Maher.
- On May 6, 2016 the trial court held a Rule hearing, found Maher in contempt for deliberately failing to appear, and fined him $500; Maher appealed.
- Separately, after judges and the client identified a conflict, the trial court on July 22, 2016 ordered Maher to cease further representation of Mother in matters under the relevant docket; Maher did not appeal that order.
- Despite the July 22 order, Maher filed a response in the Superior Court on Mother’s behalf on August 31, 2016; the trial court issued a Rule to Show Cause, held an October 21, 2016 hearing, found Maher in contempt for violating the July 22 order, and imposed a second $500 fine.
- Maher appealed both contempt orders; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoned Rule 1925 opinions rejecting Maher’s jurisdictional and due process claims and upholding exclusion of Maher from further representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial court subject‑matter jurisdiction to punish attorney contempt | Maher: contempt for attorney misconduct (Rule 8.4(d)) lies with Disciplinary Board / Supreme Court, not trial court | Trial court: contempt power is inherent and authoritatively exercised under Article V and statutes permitting summary contempt | Court: rejected Maher; trial courts have inherent contempt power and may impose summary criminal contempt for willful failure to obey court process |
| 2. Procedural due process in contempt proceedings (May 6 and Oct 21) | Maher: lacked adequate notice and procedure (no motion for contempt; judge acted as prosecutor/hearing officer) | Court: Rule to Show Cause was issued; Maher received opportunity to be heard and to present evidence | Court: rejected Maher; procedural safeguards satisfied and contemnor received opportunity to rebut |
| 3. Substantive due process / elements of contempt (volition and intent) | Maher: his nonappearance/filing were justified by exigent circumstances and were not wrongful | Court: Maher knowingly disregarded clear orders; volitional act and wrongful intent/reckless disregard proven by record and prior conduct | Court: rejected Maher; elements for criminal contempt met (clear order, notice, volitional act, wrongful intent or reckless disregard) |
| 4. Exclusion from representing Mother and refusal to allow Mother to testify | Maher: court improperly barred him from representing Mother on appeal and excluded Mother as witness (privilege waivable) | Court: July 22 order directing Maher to cease was final (no appeal); exclusion was proper to avoid conflict; calling Mother risked waiving privilege and would not excuse Maher’s violation | Court: rejected Maher; preclusion and refusal to call Mother were within discretion and justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., 32 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2011) (trial courts possess inherent power to enforce orders by contempt)
- Commonwealth v. McMullen, 961 A.2d 842 (Pa. 2008) (contempt power incidental to judicial power under Article V)
- Commonwealth v. Garrison, 386 A.2d 971 (Pa. 1978) (summary criminal contempt available to punish willful misconduct obstructing administration of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Zacher, 689 A.2d 267 (Pa. Super. 1997) (four elements required to support criminal contempt for disobedience or neglect)
- McCusker v. McCusker, 631 A.2d 645 (Pa. Super. 1993) (reckless disregard by attorney can satisfy intent element for contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 764 A.2d 569 (Pa. Super. 2000) (contemnor must be given opportunity to rebut charges)
- Commonwealth v. Marcone, 410 A.2d 759 (Pa. 1980) (deliberate absence from scheduled proceeding can fall within statutory contempt)