Orfield v. Weindel
52 A.3d 275
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Weindel was held in civil contempt for failing to appear at a contempt hearing and failing to pay $4,244 in child support arrears; the trial court imposed six months of incarceration with a purge amount equal to the full arrears.
- At a September 9, 2011 hearing, DRO reported arrears of $4,244; no active charging order existed but $300 monthly payments were ordered; Weindel had not paid since April 2009 and missed a February contempt hearing.
- Weindel acknowledged earning income under the table as a mechanic and ice-cream truck driver, but no evidence of the amount; he offered to borrow $1,000 to pay toward arrears, which the court rejected as too little, too late.
- The trial court initially ordered purge at $4,244 (full arrears).
- Weindel filed a timely motion for reconsideration (Sept. 19, 2011); the court later reduced purge to $1,000 (Nov. 2, 2011) but the order was vacated due to lack of jurisdiction for the reconsideration within the appeal window.
- This court ultimately vacated the purge order for the original $4,244 and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Weindel’s present ability to comply with a purge, acknowledging a continuing obligation to pay under a monthly $300 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the purge amount was properly set given Weindel’s present ability to pay | Weindel argues the purge amount did not reflect his ability to pay given unemployment and lack of assets | Weindel contends the court should have considered his current financial condition and possibly a reduced purge to allow compliance | purge amount vacated; remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ability to pay |
| Whether the reconsideration motion affected the appeal timing and court jurisdiction | Appellant asserts reconsideration within 30 days tolls the appeal period | Court did not act within 30 days; thus appeal period ran and order on reconsideration was a nullity | Court lacked jurisdiction to reduce purge after timely reconsideration; November 2, 2011 order vacated; remand for merits on ability to pay |
| Whether the case is moot but subject to an exception allowing review | Weindel was released after serving six months but still subject to monthly arrear payments | Contempt issues can persist if the defendant remains bound by the court’s order | Not moot; falls within exception; review proceeds on merits of ability-to-pay issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hyle v. Hyle, 868 A.2d 601 (Pa.Super.2005) (civil contempt; abuse of discretion in purge amount when no present ability to pay)
- Barrett v. Barrett, 470 Pa. 253, 368 A.2d 616 (Pa.1977) (appeal not moot where ongoing support obligation remains)
- Warmkessel v. Heffner, 17 A.3d 408 (Pa.Super.2011) (not moot where continuing obligation may lead to contempt again)
- Sayler v. Skutches, 40 A.3d 135 (Pa.Super.2012) (mootness discussion and exceptions)
- Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.2d 1005 (Pa.Super.1995) (preponderance standard for civil contempt; ability to comply)
- Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183 (Pa.Super.2001) (need showing of violation of a court order by preponderance of evidence)
- Wetzel v. Suchanek, 541 A.2d 763 (Pa.Super.1988) (civil vs. criminal contempt distinction; purge rights)
- Said also cited, Gunther v. Bolus (Pa.Super.2004) (purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance)