Hoy, K. v. Wheeler, W.
1871 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background:
- Father (William Wheeler) had two child-support obligations: one to Laurie Wheeler (marital son) and one to Katheryn Hoy (son born 2014). Interim orders (May 2015) set monthly support at $512 and $451; arrears already existed.
- Father filed a petition to modify support on June 17, 2015, alleging a shoulder injury that limited employment; surgery occurred in July 2015. Judge Platt did not resolve the modification for ~19 months.
- Judge Platt entered final support orders in August 2015 fixing combined monthly support at $982; Father did not appeal that order.
- Contempt petitions were filed (Hoy in Oct 2015; Wheeler in Mar 2016) for failure to pay according to the August 2015 order; Judge Carmody presided over the contempt hearings.
- Father was incarcerated Dec 2015–Feb 2016 on unrelated criminal convictions, sought continuances and recusal in the contempt proceedings, represented himself at the May 12, 2016 contempt hearing, presented limited medical records, but did not testify or demonstrate good‑faith inability to pay.
- The trial court found Father in civil contempt, imposed possible six‑month imprisonment with purge conditions, and Father appealed. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellees) | Defendant's Argument (Wheeler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in finding contempt without first resolving Father’s pending motion to modify support | Court may enforce existing final orders; proof of nonpayment meets burden | Modification motion made the August 2015 order uncertain; contempt should await modification | Court held contempt finding proper; pending modification did not preclude contempt hearing |
| Whether court abused discretion by denying continuance to consolidate modification and contempt | Proceeding delay prejudices neither child nor enforcement; timely contempt hearing appropriate | Continuance necessary so modification could inform contempt/ability-to-pay | Denial not an abuse; Father could present ability-to-pay evidence at contempt hearing |
| Whether court erred by refusing recusal of Judge Carmody | Not applicable; appellees did not seek recusal | Judge Carmody had presided over related criminal matters and was biased | Recusal denial affirmed; no record evidence of bias or prejudice |
| Whether Father’s inability-to-pay defense warranted dismissal of contempt | Appellees proved nonpayment by preponderance; Father failed to show good‑faith effort or present inability to pay | Father contends injury and pending modification show inability to pay and good faith | Held Father failed to prove inability or good‑faith effort; contempt valid; purge condition permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- R.K.J. v. S.P.K., 77 A.3d 33 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (best interests of children guide child support)
- Ferko–Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (review of continuance denial is for abuse of discretion)
- Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for contempt in child support and role of ability to pay)
- Hyle v. Hyle, 868 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (due process limits coercive confinement; purge conditions must be achievable)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (court must consider ability to satisfy purge condition)
- Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 470 A.2d 981 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (financial inability defense requires good‑faith effort to comply)