R.S. v. R.W.
R.S. v. R.W. No. 2076 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- Appellant (R.E.W.) and his ex-wife divorced in 2003 and litigated child support and custody for years; multiple contempt and modification proceedings ensued.
- A January 29, 2009 support order was later reinstated; Special Master and trial court in January 2015 set monthly support (imputing Appellant income ≈ $5,939.68/month) and required $100/month on arrears after finding Appellant had recovered from his accident and had business income.
- DRO filed contempt petitions for Appellant’s failure to pay; arrears grew (reported as ≈ $46,625.99 by October 2015) despite sporadic small payments and a prior purge payment of $1,500.
- Appellant claimed disability from a 2012 car accident and inability to work; he presented scant documentary proof and did not produce detailed business expense or income documentation.
- The trial court found Appellant willfully in contempt on October 19, 2015, sentenced him to 60 days (coercive civil confinement) with a purge condition of $10,000 payable by a specified date; Appellant appealed.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Appellant bore the burden to prove present inability to comply and failed to meet it; the court therefore did not err in imposing the purge condition.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DRO/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt finding was proper where Appellant allegedly introduced no proof of present inability to pay | Appellant: trial court erred because he was not permitted to fully prove inability to pay; lack of evidence showing present inability defeats contempt | DRO/Trial court: burden rested on Appellant to prove present inability; record shows Appellant had opportunity and failed to produce credible evidence | Court: Affirmed contempt—Appellant failed to prove present inability to comply, so contempt adjudication was proper |
| Whether purge condition ($10,000) was improper absent evidence Appellant could pay | Appellant: court should have made express finding that he had ability to pay the purge amount; absent that, purge unlawful | DRO/Trial court: purge condition only requires court to ensure ability to pay where contemnor presents evidence of inability; Appellant presented none | Court: Affirmed purge—because Appellant did not present inability evidence, court had no obligation to make a separate finding and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for civil contempt and abuse of discretion)
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion defined for contempt decisions)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (civil contempt is coercive, and courts must avoid imprisoning persons who cannot comply; due-process considerations in civil contempt proceedings)
- Barrett v. Barrett, 368 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1977) (burden of proving present inability to comply is on the alleged contemnor)
- Pitulski v. Muraco, 368 A.2d 624 (Pa. 1977) (where contemnor presents evidence of inability to comply, court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the totality of evidence that contemnor has present ability to comply with purge conditions)