L.A.B. v. J.C.B., Jr.
L.A.B. v. J.C.B., Jr. No. 2091 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- Parents of three children litigated custody after divorce; in 2015 court awarded shared legal custody, with Mother primary physical custodian and Father limited physical time.
- In March 2016 Mother filed a motion seeking an educational evaluation for child R.B.; school staff recommended testing but both parents’ consent was required.
- Mother immediately consented; Father withheld consent from November 2015 through the spring of 2016, citing the child’s good grades and standardized-test performance.
- Mother filed a custody petition to compel the evaluation; hearings took place May 27, May 31, and June 1, 2016; Mother asked for attorney’s fees under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5339 during the hearing.
- The trial court ordered the educational assessment, awarded Mother sole legal custody for education decisions as to R.B., and granted Mother counsel fees of $15,605.25, finding Father’s conduct "obdurate, vexatious and arbitrary."
- Father appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in finding his conduct met the statutory standard for awarding counsel fees.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 5339 permits fee awards for Father’s opposition to R.B.’s testing | Father’s refusal was arbitrary, vexatious, and obstructed R.B.’s interests; fees appropriate | Father’s opposition was a reasonable, fact-based dispute about necessity of testing | Reversed: opposition over a short period did not justify fees under §5339 |
| Whether Father’s conduct was motivated by animus, supporting fees | Trial court found animus and willful litigation | Father denied animus; record lacked evidence of animus | Court held trial court’s animus finding unsupported by the record |
| Whether repetitive or meritless litigation existed to justify fees | Mother characterized Father’s conduct as obstructive and repetitive | Father’s actions were limited in time and not part of a pattern of meritless filings | Court found no repetitive, meritless pattern analogous to cases awarding fees |
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard and abused discretion | Trial court applied §5339 and found obdurate/vexatious conduct | Father argued misapplication of law and abuse of discretion | Appellate court concluded trial court abused its discretion and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standard of review for fee awards; abuse of discretion review)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (limits on fee awards and appellate scope of review)
- Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi, 100 A.3d 587 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpretation of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5339; guidance from § 2503 decisions)
- A.L.-S. v. B.S., 117 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reversing fee award where multiple petitions sought distinct legitimate relief)
- In re Barnes Foundation, 74 A.3d 129 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of vexatious conduct for fee awards)
- O'Connell v. O'Connell, 597 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 1991) (vigorous defense in contested matter does not alone justify fee award)
- Lower v. Lower, 584 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1991) (refusal to award fees where disputes appropriately required third-party resolution)