E.J.U. v. A.M.U.
E.J.U. v. A.M.U. No. 2046 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Parents (Father E.J.U. and Mother A.M.U.) share a daughter; they entered a stipulated custody order on October 5, 2015.
- Mother filed a petition for contempt alleging multiple violations of the custody order (vacation-notice, extracurricular-transportation, and prohibition on disparaging remarks).
- At a November 10, 2016 contempt hearing, the court found Father willfully violated the order 14 times (1 failure to notify of out-of-county vacation, 3 failures to transport child to horseback riding lessons, and 10 disparaging-remarks violations).
- The court imposed fines of $500 for each contempt (total $7,000), awarded Mother attorney’s fees and expenses, and conditioned 30 days’ imprisonment if Father did not pay within 60 days.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion in finding contempt for the Maine trip and riding-class failures, and (2) the court erred by imposing $500 per violation and incarceration without a purge condition.
- The Superior Court affirmed the contempt findings and the per-violation fines, rejected the purge-condition argument, but remanded to designate the payee of the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion finding contempt for failure to notify of out-of-county vacation and for failing to transport child to extracurriculars | Father knowingly and willfully violated the custody order; texts and schedules prove notice, volitional conduct, and wrongful intent | Father denied willful violation or challenged sufficiency of proof for those specific contempts | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; record (texts, schedule, testimony) supports findings |
| Whether trial court erred imposing $500 per violation (total $7,000) and incarceration without a purge condition | Multiple contempts alleged in single petition; each proven contempt may be punished separately; statute allows fines and imprisonment; purge condition not required for this statutory contempt sanction | Argued statute permits only a single $500 maximum fine (not per violation) and incarceration without purge was improper | Affirmed — court may impose $500 for each proven contempt; incarceration without a purge condition was permissible under cited precedent; remanded only to identify the fine’s payee |
Key Cases Cited
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for contempt orders and abuse-of-discretion deferential)
- Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (courts are exclusive judges of contempt; contempt power preserves court authority)
- Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements required to sustain civil contempt: notice, volitional act, wrongful intent)
- Sutliff v. Sutliff, 522 A.2d 80 (Pa. Super. 1987) (no requirement that contempt fine under certain custody statutes include a purge condition)
- Brocker v. Brocker, 241 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1968) (remedial fines may be payable to government body or aggrieved litigant)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (procedural Rule 1925(b) filing defect does not mandate dismissal when no prejudice)