West Pittston Borough v. LIW Investments, Inc.
119 A.3d 415
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- LIW Investments, Inc. (LIW) owned a duplex in West Pittston with severe code violations (mold, animal carcasses, structural defects, stolen copper piping); Borough issued notices and posted the property unfit for habitation.
- Borough sued LIW; LIW did not answer. The trial court issued a December 27, 2013 preliminary injunction requiring LIW to remediate the property, provide a professional mold assessment, and prohibiting transfer.
- LIW repeatedly failed to comply; Borough moved for contempt and sanctions; the court made the injunction absolute and ordered LIW to produce financial records to assess ability to comply.
- Keller, listed with the Department of State as LIW’s president, attended hearings, represented LIW would not transfer the property, but later claimed he resigned effective April 1, 2014; his resignation was not authenticated or shown to have been delivered to LIW/DoS.
- The trial court found LIW and Keller in civil contempt for failing to produce LIW’s financial records and authorized Keller’s incarceration until compliance; Keller appealed the contempt order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer may be held in contempt for a corporation’s disobedience | Borough: corporate officer who knows of order and can act may be held accountable; Keller had notice and opportunity | Keller: he wasn’t the entity sued; he resigned and thus cannot be punished for LIW’s contempt | Court: Officer liability recognized; Keller remained listed and had notice; contempt against Keller affirmed |
| Whether contempt elements were met (notice, volitional act, wrongful intent) | Borough: Keller had notice of orders, hearings, and failed to comply or produce records | Keller: lack of proof he remained officer or had ability to comply; no wrongful intent shown | Court: Preponderance showed notice and volitional noncompliance; resignation unproven/did not excuse conduct |
| Whether due process was satisfied in contempt proceedings | Borough: hearings, show-cause, opportunity to explain were provided | Keller: alleged lack of proper notice of October 3 hearing and inadequate process | Court: Process was adequate; Keller’s claim of lack of notice was rejected as disingenuous |
| Whether incarceration is an appropriate civil contempt coercive remedy | Borough: incarceration coerces compliance with production of records | Keller: incarceration punishes him for corporate failure and is not authorized absent proof | Court: Civil contempt coercion permissible; incarceration upheld to compel compliance given officer’s role and refusal to cooperate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., 32 A.3d 639 (Pa. 2011) (courts have inherent power to enforce orders by contempt)
- Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1911) (a corporate command is a command to responsible officers who may be punished if they prevent compliance)
- Neshaminy Water Res. Auth. v. Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc., 481 A.2d 879 (Pa. Super. 1984) (injunctions against corporations enforceable against officers/agents who knowingly violate them)
- Schnabel Assocs., Inc. v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 487 A.2d 1327 (Pa. Super. 1985) (burden on complainant to prove noncompliance by preponderance in civil contempt)
- Epstein v. Saul Ewing, LLP, 7 A.3d 303 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements required to sustain civil contempt: notice, volitional act, wrongful intent)