J. S22031/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JONA E. MAIOLO : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

JOSEPH R. MAIOLO, :

:

Appellant : No. 1190 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered June 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County 

Civil Division No(s): 14-20,738

BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 05, 2016

Appellant, Joseph R. Maiolo (“Husband”), appeals from the order of the 

trial court granting the Motion for Sanctions that Appellee, Jona E. Maiolo 

(“Wife”), filed and holding Husband in contempt of court. We affirm in part 

and quash the appeal in part.

Factual and Procedural History

Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce against Husband on June 3, 2014, 

after four years of marriage. See Complaint, 6/3/14, at 1. On September 

26, 2014,1the trial court ordered Wife to continue to maintain health 

insurance benefits for Husband and ordered Husband to reimburse Wife 50% 

of the policy premiums (“September 26, 2014 Order”). 

 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 This order was entered on the docket on October 7, 2014.
J.S22031/16

- 2 -

On October 1, 2014, Wife served multiple requests for documents and 

interrogatories on Husband. Trial Ct. Op., 8/31/15, at 5. Husband did not 

provide a response to the requests or file any objections to the requests. On 

November 26, 2014, Wife’s counsel filed a Motion to Compel. Id. 

On December 4, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the Motion to 

Compel. At the hearing, Husband did not raise any objections to the 

requests and the trial court granted Wife’s Motion to Compel and directed 

Husband to provide full and complete responses to Wife’s discovery requests 

within 30 days (“December 4, 2014 Order”). Id. Once again, Husband 

failed not only to object to the requests, but also to provide the full and 

complete responses to the request. Id.

As a result of Husband’s failure to respond in any meaningful way to 

the December 4, 2014 Order, Wife filed a Motion to Compel/Motion for 

Sanctions (“Motion for Sanctions”) on May 1, 2015. 

In Count I of the Motion for Sanctions, Wife claimed that Husband 

failed to provide her with any additional documents and consequently, was 

in contempt of the December 4, 2014 Order. She averred that although her 

counsel received partial answers to the discovery, most answers were “to be 

provided” and Husband had not provided any meaningful information in 

response to the December 4, 2014 Order. Mot. to Compel, 5/1/15, at 1 

(unpaginated). 
J.S22031/16

- 3 -

In Count II of the Motion for Sanctions, Wife averred that Husband 

violated the September 26, 2014 Order by failing to pay Wife 50% of the 

health insurance premiums for the policies that Wife maintains for the 

parties. Id. at 2 (unpaginated). Wife asserted that Husband pays her less 

than 50% of the premiums because he arbitrarily deducts an amount that he 

believes would be Wife’s tax benefit from the amount he owes her. Id. 

Wife also claimed that Husband sends her the reimbursement check on 

the last day of the month, and not on the 15th day of the month, resulting in 

delayed payment, and, once, insufficient funds. Id. 

Wife, therefore, asked the trial court to find Husband in contempt, 

enforce its order that Husband reimburse her the full 50% of the premium 

on or before the 15th of each month, and award her reasonable attorney’s 

fees. Id. at 3 (unpaginated).

On May 8, 2015, the court gave the Husband thirty days’ notice that 

the court would hear the Wife’s Motion for Sanctions on June 11, 2015. Trial 

Ct. Op., 8/31/15, at 2. On June 10, 2015 at 4:14 PM, late in the afternoon 

on the day before the hearing, Husband’s counsel sent a fax to the trial court 

claiming that Husband would be “out of town” on the next day and 

requesting that the court continue the hearing. Id. The trial court denied 
J.S22031/16

- 4 -

Husband’s request, and held the hearing as scheduled in Husband’s 

absence.2

Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order on June 16, 

2015, granting Wife’s Motion for Sanctions as to Count I and finding 

Husband in contempt of the December 4, 2014 Order requiring him to 

provide full and complete answers to Wife’s discovery requests (“June 16, 

2015 Order”). The court also ordered Husband to pay counsel fees to Wife’s 

counsel in the amount of $500, unless Husband produced to Wife a series of 

enumerated documents.3 Trial Ct. Order, 6/16/15, at 1-2 (unpaginated).

The court also granted Wife’s Motion for Sanctions as to Count II, 

finding Husband in contempt of the October 26, 2014 Order, which required 

him to reimburse Wife 50% of the parties’ health insurance premiums. The 

court found that husband owed Wife $226.45 and ordered Husband to remit 

to Wife this amount within 30 days. The court did not sanction Husband for 

this contempt.

On July 10, 2015, Husband filed a Notice of Appeal of the June 16, 

2015 Order. Husband and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

 

2

 Husband’s counsel appeared at the hearing on Husband’s behalf.

3 The court ordered that this sanction would be suspended if Husband 

provided full and complete discovery responses on or before July 17, 2015. 

The record does not reflect, and Husband does not claim, that he provided 

the discovery responses on or before that date. 
J.S22031/16

- 5 -

Issues on Appeal

Husband raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying 

[Husband’s] motion for continuance which prevented 

him from attending the hearing to present testimony 

and evidence to the court relevant to [Wife’s] petition 

for contempt.

2. Whether the trial court erred by finding [Husband] 

in contempt for failing to provide documentation 

pursuant to a discovery request by [Wife] when [Wife] 

was in possession of the information [Husband] needed 

to properly respond to the discovery request.

3. Whether the trial court erred in making the 

determination of contempt when [Husband] had already 

filed a request for a new determination of his share of 

the health insurance premium at the same time he filed 

a petition for spousal support.

4. Whether the trial court erred in failing to properly 

calculate the tax benefit to [Wife] when determining the 

amount to be paid by [Husband] for his share of the 

contribution to health insurance provided by [Wife’s] 

employer.

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

Legal Analysis

Before addressing the merits of Husband’s issues, we must first 

consider whether this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. It is wellsettled that an order declaring a party in contempt and imposing sanctions is 

immediately appealable. Takosky v. Henning, 906 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa. 

Super. 2006). However, if the trial court does not impose sanctions or 
J.S22031/16

- 6 -

imprisonment, an order declaring a party in contempt is interlocutory and 

not appealable. Id. 

The trial court’s June 16, 2015 Order found Husband in contempt of its 

December 4, 2014 Order requiring Husband to provide full and complete 

answers to Wife’s discovery requests and imposed a monetary sanction on 

Husband for his failure to comply. Husband’s appeal from this portion of the 

June 16, 2015 Order is, therefore, proper. Id. 

In contrast, the portion of the June 16, 2015 Order that found 

Husband in contempt of the September 24, 2014 Order requiring Husband to 

reimburse Wife for health insurance premiums she paid on Husband’s behalf 

does not impose a sanction against Husband. Accordingly, the appeal of this 

portion of the June 16, 2015 Order is interlocutory and we quash Husband’s 

appeal as to these issues. Id.

Now we turn to the substance of the portion of June 16, 2015 Order 

that imposed sanctions on Husband for failing to respond to discovery 

requests. Husband first argues that the trial court erred in not granting his 

counsel’s request for a continuance of the hearing on the Motion for 

Sanctions that his counsel made at 4:14 PM on the day before the hearing. 

Appellant’s Brief at 10. Husband acknowledges that his counsel made the 

request with short notice, but argues that he made the request as soon as 

Husband became aware of his scheduling conflict. Id. Husband further 
J.S22031/16

- 7 -

argues that Wife would not have been prejudiced by a continuance. Id. at 

10-11. 

In particular, Husband disputes the trial court’s characterization in its 

Pa.R.A.P 1925(a) Opinion that Wife would have been prejudiced if the 

hearing were delayed, claiming: (1) that the documents requested by Wife 

were already mostly in her possession; and (2) a hearing on the proper 

amount of Husband’s health insurance contribution was scheduled for June 

29, 2015, and could have been resolved at that time. Id. at 10-11. We 

disagree.

We review a trial court’s decision to deny a continuance for an abuse 

of discretion. In re: J.K., 825 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2003). “An 

abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment, and, on appeal, 

the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the 

record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, 

or the results of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Baysmore v. 

Brownstein, 771 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2001).

Here, Husband had more than 30 days’ notice of the hearing on Wife’s 

Motion for Sanctions. Husband faxed his request for a continuance late in 

the afternoon prior to the hearing and without explanation for his being “out 

of town.” 

We note that Husband’s general statement of being “out of town” 

faxed to the trial court late in the afternoon on the day before the hearing, 
J.S22031/16

- 8 -

without more, is in and of itself a proper reason to deny the request for 

continuance. This late request inconveniences not only the other parties and 

witnesses, but also the court’s schedule. 

A late request for a continuance deprives the trial court of the 

opportunity to use its time in court effectively and efficiently. The trial court 

intentionally notifies parties of a hearing thirty days before the hearing to 

give the parties enough time to coordinate their schedules and to permit the 

trial court to schedule another matter if the parties are unavailable.

In this case, the trial court properly focused on the fact that delaying 

the hearing would prejudice Wife’s interests in that the harm alleged by Wife 

in her Motion “would have continued to affect Wife during the course of any 

rescheduling.” Trial Ct. Op. at 3. We conclude that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion when it determined “[t]he late nature of Husband’s 

request without cause was manifestly unreasonable[,]” and denied 

Husband’s request. Id.

In his second issue, Husband argues that the trial court erred in 

finding him in contempt for failing to produce documents pursuant to Wife’s 

discovery requests and the December 4, 2014 Order. Husband maintains 

that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt because 

he did not willfully and intentionally disobey the trial court’s order. 

Appellant’s Brief at 12. Husband did not challenge the trial court’s 

imposition of sanctions against him.
J.S22031/16

- 9 -

We review the trial court’s finding of contempt, and sanctions it 

imposes, for a misapplication of the law or clear abuse of discretion. 

MacDougall v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892 (Pa. Super. 2012). The 

burden of proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate that a party 

is in contempt of a court order. Id. To prevail on a contempt claim, the 

complaining party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) 

the contemnor had notice of the order that has allegedly been violated; (2) 

that the contempt was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with 

wrongful intent. Id. 

Here, the trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion that it entered 

the December 4, 2014 Order, granting Wife’s Motion to Compel and directing 

Husband to provide full and complete responses to Wife’s discovery 

requests. Trial Ct. Op. at 5. Husband’s counsel received a copy of the 

order. Id. Husband did not object to the requests, but simply failed to 

produce the requested documents. Id. Husband has not argued that he 

provided the documents. Id. The trial court concluded that Husband acted 

willfully and with wrongful intent and was, therefore, in contempt of the 

December 4, 2014 Order. Id. We agree. 

Our review of the record confirms the trial court’s finding that 

Husband’s failure to comply with the December 4, 2014 Order was willful 

and intentional. 
J.S22031/16

- 10 -

Husband has argued on appeal that he cannot provide the information

the Wife requested because the information is either in Wife’s possession or 

is protected by Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) regulations. 

The court finds these explanations disingenuous. If Husband, in fact, 

believed that Wife had the information or IRS regulations protect the 

information, Husband had every opportunity to file the appropriate motion 

with the court. In fact, at the hearing on the discovery requests on 

December 4, 2014, Husband did not mention either of these arguments.

Moreover, Husband gave a contrary answer in his responses that the 

information was “to be provided.” Record at 21-23. Husband was aware of 

the December 4, 2014 Order and failed to respond to it in a meaningful way 

even after having opportunities to object or respond. Therefore, the trial 

court properly concluded that Husband willfully and intentionally disregarded 

the Order of December 4, 2014 and that Husband’s dilatory behavior will not 

be tolerated.

Based on the evidence of record, we conclude that the trial court acted

within its discretion in finding Husband in contempt and assessing sanctions 

against Husband.
J.S22031/16

- 11 -

Order affirmed in part, appeal quashed in part. Case remanded. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/5/2016