Jackson Twp. Supervisors v. Estate of C. Gresh, D. Gresh, Administrator, 1942 C.D. 2016

The Township sued the Estate of Catherine Gresh (Dennis Gresh, administrator) seeking injunctive relief for ordinance violations on a 2.5-acre parcel (alleged junkyard, unregistered vehicles, debris, temporary storage).
The trial court ordered cleanup in 2011; repeated noncompliance led to multiple contempt petitions, hearings, intermittent jail sentences (one served) and ongoing supervision through 2014–2016.
On remand from this Court (Gresh I), the trial court held evidentiary hearings (Sept. 2015, Feb. 2016) and again found Gresh in civil contempt for failing to comply with prior orders and Township ordinances.
The trial court sentenced Gresh to 60 days in county jail but stayed the sentence for 60 days and set detailed purge conditions (remove specified vehicles/trash, store items only in permanent structures, obtain permits, comply with ordinances) and scheduled a January 18, 2017 hearing to determine whether he had purged the contempt.
Gresh appealed during the purge period. The trial court and this Court evaluated whether the contempt adjudication was civil or criminal and whether the November 1, 2016 order was final and appealable.
This Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory because the civil-contempt order stayed imposition of the sanction pending a future hearing and thus contemplated further proceedings before the sanction could take effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court specified the contemptuous conduct	Gresh argued the court failed to identify specific conduct supporting contempt	Township relied on the lengthy record, prior orders, views and hearings as sufficient	Court found record as a whole made basis clear and rejected Gresh’s specificity claim
Whether purge conditions were arbitrary/vague	Gresh challenged purge terms as arbitrary, not required by law, or too vague to comply	Township argued conditions mirrored ordinance and prior court directives and were clear	Court held purge conditions were lawful, clear, and grounded in ordinance requirements
Whether property use was a protected prior nonconforming commercial use	Gresh asserted property was exempt as preexisting commercial use	Township maintained issue was not raised/preserved on remand and had been previously rejected	Court agreed issue was not preserved and previously decided, thus not considered
Whether appeal from contempt order is appealable/final	Gresh proceeded with appeal during purge period seeking review of contempt order	Township argued order was interlocutory because sanction was stayed and a further hearing was required before incarceration	Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory because the civil-contempt order stayed the sanction and contemplated further proceedings before the sanction could take effect

Knaus v. Knaus, 127 A.2d 669 (Pa. 1956) (distinguishes civil vs. criminal contempt by dominant purpose of the court)
Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa. Super. 2001) (elements required to sustain civil contempt)
McMahon v. McMahon, 706 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1998) (procedural requirements for civil contempt and need for hearing and opportunity to purge)
Wolanin v. Hashagen, 829 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 2003) (contempt order imposing sanctions is appealable where no further court order is needed to make sanctions effective)
Sargent v. Sargent, 733 A.2d 640 (Pa. Super. 1999) (order declaring contempt without imposed sanctions is interlocutory)
Rhoades v. Pryce, 874 A.2d 148 (Pa. Super. 2005) (civil contempt with sanctions typically constitutes a final, appealable order unless further proceedings are required)