Estate of DiSabato, Dec'd. Appeal of DiGiovanni, P
165 A.3d 987
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant DiGiovanni, former administrator of Helen J. Disabato’s estate, was repeatedly ordered to pay the estate $500/month until a $29,279.55 debt was satisfied.
- Orphans’ Court found him in continuing contempt on December 18, 2015, and February 3, 2016, for failure to comply with prior orders from 2012–2014.
- Prior Orders mandated monthly payments and included separate awards for costs/fees and tax liabilities.
- DiGiovanni admitted to earning cash payments while license to practice law was suspended, complicating his ability to pay.
- The December 18, 2015 Order placed DiGiovanni on “probation,” with a purging amount tied to present ability to pay and potential jail for noncompliance, which he appealed.
- Appellee Estate seeks to enforce the order as civil contempt, while DiGiovanni argues it imposes criminal penalties and modifies prior orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil vs. criminal contempt distinction | DiGiovanni contends the order imposes criminal sanctions. | DiGiovanni asserts the probationary mechanism constitutes criminal punishment. | Court held the order civil, not criminal, as purging allowed and measures tied to present ability to pay. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for contempt | Record shows ongoing nonpayment despite ability to pay. | DiGiovanni claims lack of evidence of present ability or intent to defy orders. | There is ample evidence of present ability to comply and ongoing nonpayment; no abuse of discretion. |
| Authority to impose purging condition | Purging condition enforces compliance with prior orders. | Purging mechanism not authorized or improperly used. | Purging condition valid, tailored to DiGiovanni’s ability to pay; not a modification of prior orders. |
| Effect of probation language under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4132-4133 | Contempt falls within civil purview; statutes apply to criminal contempt only. | Distribution of probation could be criminal in nature. | Order operates civilly; Sections 4132-4133 do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. 1995) (civil contempt purpose coercion to comply with orders)
- Wetzel v. Suchanek, 541 A.2d 761 (Pa. Super. 1988) (non-compliance requires total proof; contemnor’s inability to perform defeats contempt)
- Crozer–Chester Med. Ctr. v. Moran, 560 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1989) (cannot impose coercive sentence for act incapable of performance)
- Stewart v. Foxworth, 65 A.3d 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (criminal contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for in-court misconduct)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 556 A.2d 1379 (Pa. Super. 1989) (burden on showing violation of court order in civil contempt)
- Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148 (Pa. Super. 2005) (interlocutory nature of contempt orders; non-final appealable)
- Ermel v. Ermel, 469 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1983) (burden on contemnor to show inability to comply)
- Colbert v. Gunning, 533 A.2d 471 (Pa. Super. 1987) (criminal vs civil contempt distinctions)