Ligonier Twp. v. M.S. Nied and P.J. Nied, her husband ~ Appeal of: M.S. Nied, P.J. Nied and Foxley Farm, LLC
2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 173
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Margaret and Paul Nied (with Foxley Farm, LLC) operated commercial events (weddings, stays, large gatherings) on a 59-acre property zoned R-2; Township issued a zoning violation for unpermitted commercial uses.
- Parties negotiated a Consent Order (April 12, 2013) limiting events to 11 (size caps), forbidding overnight accommodations and wedding marketing absent a certificate of occupancy, and providing prevailing-party attorney’s fees for enforcement.
- Intervening neighbors and the Township alleged Defendants violated the Consent Order by holding more than 11 events; the trial court held contempt and awarded civil penalties plus attorney’s fees to Township and Intervenors.
- Defendants sought to vacate the Consent Order (claims of fraud, duress, mutual mistake) and requested a Rule to Show Cause; trial court exercised discretion to deny issuance and later found Defendants in contempt.
- On appeal, Commonwealth Court affirmed contempt and most of the fee award but reduced the fee award by excluding fees for matters not arising from enforcement of the Consent Order (a zoning board hearing and a mandamus action).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township/Intervenors) | Defendant's Argument (Nied) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by declining to issue a Rule to Show Cause to consider vacating the Consent Order | Rule 206.5(c) discretionary; trial court may decline issuance under local rules | Nied: Petition stated prima facie grounds (fraud/duress/mistake); Rule required issuance and discovery | Trial court did not err — issuance was discretionary under local rules and Rule 206.5(c) did not mandate issuance |
| Whether contempt finding was improper because Consent Order was void ab initio or Defendants lacked notice | Consent Order was negotiated and entered; Defendants had notice and acted willfully in violating it | Nied: Avolio only mentioned possible fines; they lacked specific notice and thus could not be held in contempt | Contempt affirmed — record supports that Defendants had notice, acted volitionally, and acted with wrongful intent |
| Whether attorney’s fee award should include fees for unrelated proceedings | Fees recoverable where enforcement action pursued under Consent Order; broad award justified by paragraph providing fees to prevailing enforcement-party | Nied: $22,820 of fees were unrelated (zoning board hearing, petition to vacate, mandamus) and should be excluded | Award affirmed in part: fees for defending the petition to vacate were recoverable; fees for the zoning board hearing and mandamus action were not and were improperly awarded |
| Standard of appellate review for contempt and fee awards | Abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt and fee awards; trial court’s factual findings entitled to deference | Nied urged reversal for legal errors and excessive fee award | Court applied abuse-of-discretion and plenary review of procedural-rule interpretation; affirmed in part, reversed in part on fee items |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. May, 67 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for interpreting and applying Pa. R.C.P.).
- Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (procedural-rule interpretation authority cited with Keller).
- Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa. Super. 2001) (elements required to sustain a civil contempt finding).
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (appellate review of attorney’s fee awards limited to abuse of discretion).
- Jack Rees Nursing & Rehabilitation Servs. v. Hersperger, 600 A.2d 207 (Pa. Super. 1991) (courts are exclusive judges of contempt; reversal only for plain abuse of discretion).