IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Delaware Township Board of : Auditors; Dennis Lee; Michael : Dickerson; and Jane E. Neufeld, : Appellants :

: v. : No. 1601 C.D. 2014

: Argued : September 1 4 , 2015 Delaware Township; Pennsylvania : Municipalities Pension Trust; : Ileana F. Hernandez and Thaddeus : Parsell :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER , Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: January 5, 2016

Delaware Township Board of Auditors (Board of Auditors) , Dennis Lee, Michael Dickerson, and Jane E. Neufeld ( collectively, Appellants) appeal
from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County that sustained the preliminary objections of Delaware Township, Pennsylvania Municipalities
Pension Trust (Trust) , Ileana F. Hernandez, and Thaddeus Parsell ( collectively, Appellees) and dismissed Appellan ts’ complaint. At issue is Section 606(b) of the Second Class Township Code (Code), 1 which mandates auditor approval for the participation of township supervisors who also are employed by the township in

1 Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, as amended , 53 P.S. § 65606(b).2

any employee capacity (supervisor

- employees) in emp loyee pension plans funded, in whole or in part, by townships

. White Deer Twp. v. Napp , 985 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2009). T he legislature designed Section 606 of the Code to curtail decision

making by supervisors in areas involving their own self

- interest an d auditor approval for the inclusion of supervisor

- employees in pension plans is one of the statutory safeguards in place

. Id

. Based on the well

- pled, material and relevant facts, we conclude that Appellants would be unable to prove facts legally suffici ent to establish a right to relief . Accordingly , w e affirm

.

In March 2006, the Delaware Township Board of Supervisors approved the creation of a new defined benefit pension plan for qualifying township employees. June 5, 2014 , First Amended Complaint, ¶ 9; Reproduced Record ( R.R. ) at 103a. At the time of creation, all three members of the three

member B oard of Supervisors were also paid township employees. Id ., ¶ 10 ; R.R.
at 103a . On March 28, 2006, the Township called a spec ial meeting with the Board of Auditors to consider the participation of the then existing township supervisor

- employees in the pension plan, as required by Section 606(b) of the Code. Those supervisor

- employees seeking to participate in the plan included Hernandez, t ownship secretary, and Parsell, t ownship roadmaster. Id ., ¶¶ 12 and
24 ; R.R. at 104a and 108a

. Those present at the meeting included the then existing
Board of Auditors, the Board of Supervisors, and the t ownship solicitor. Id ., ¶ 1 3 ; R.R. a t 104a

. N o written documentation about the plan was provided to the Board
of A uditors before or during the meeting ; the t ownship solicitor and the

s upervisors merely provided a verbal overview of the plan under consideration.
Id ., ¶ 14 ; R.R. at 104a

.3 P u rsuant to the minutes of that meeting, the details and guidelines of plan were as follows:

a ) The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) would manage the plan; b ) The Township would fund the plan, without employee contributions;

c ) T he cost of the plan w ould be a flat $79,000 per year ; d ) D uring year one, the additional cost to the Township
, $69,000
, would come from t ownship reserves; for the remaining years, the additional cost would be added as a new line item to the budget; after three y ears, PSATS would contribute 50% of the cost of the plan ;

e ) T he plan would be available to all permanent t ownship employees working full time for at least 35 hours a week; f ) Township employees would be eligible for pension benefits after 10 years of service or at age 65, but no sooner than age 65;
g ) T he benefits would consist of 1.0% of the employee's final monthly salary, averaged over the final 36 months of employment and multiplied by the years of service at retirement; h ) T he benefits would v est 100% after 10 years of continuous service as a t ownship employee; i ) T he plan would be retroactive to January 1, 2006. Id ., ¶ 15 ; R.R. at 105a and Secretary’s Minutes, Exhibit A to First Amended Complaint ; R.R. at 122

- 23a (emphasis added) . The minutes reflect that a motion was made, upon the joint recommendation of the Board of Auditors, to approve the proposed plan and for township supervisors Hernandez, Parsell and one other to participate in the proposed plan as presented

. 2 Id ., ¶¶ 16 and 17 ; R.R

. at 105

- 06a.

2 Before qualifying to participate in the plan, the third township supervisor

- employee ended his career with the Township. First Amended Complaint, ¶ 16 n.1; R.R. at 105a.4 Thus , the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 2006

- 04 titled , “A Resolution to provide a pension plan and benefits for all non

- police employees of Delaware Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania after ten (10) years of servic e or at age 65, whichever is later.” Id ., ¶ 18; R.R. at 106a and Resolution No. 2006

- 04, Exhibit B to First Amended Complaint ; R.R. at 125

- 26a. Appellants aver that
the Board of A uditors w as not provided with a copy of the resolution before the
March 28 meeting and did not sign the proposed resolution before its adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Id ., ¶ 18 ; R.R. at 106a

. However, the auditors did sign
Resolution No. 2006

- 04, dating their signatures March 28. Appellants additionally
aver that the Boa rd of Supervisors in Mar ch 2006 also passed Resolution No.
2006

- 05, purporting to authorize the release of $79,000 from the Township’s operating reserve fund to fund the new pension plan. Id ., ¶ 19; R.R. at 106a and
Resolution No. 2006

- 05, Exhibit C to First Amended Complaint ; R.R. at 128a.

Appellants aver that the pension plan actually adopted by the Township is fundamentally different from the proposed plan that the Board of
A uditors approved , with the following material differe nces: 1) t he cost of the plan

was not $79,000 per year , but instead fluctuated ; 3 2) PSATS will never contribute
to the p lan; 4 3) i f the Commonwealth does contribute , its contribution will never be

3 Resolution No. 200 6

- 04 does not contain any reference to the cost of the plan. Pursuant to t he Auditor General ’s report, attached to the C omplaint , the required annual contribution for 2006 was $80,380 and in a ll subsequent years through 2012 (the last year reflected in the Report), the required contribution varied from $58,557 to $78,543. Id ., Jan uary 6, 2014 Auditor General’s Compliance Audit Report for Delaware Twp. Non

- Uniformed Pension Plan for the period of 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2012, Exhibit D to First Amended Complai nt; R.R. at 130

- 41a. Accordingly, although the Auditor General’s Report shows that the cost of the plan was variable rather than fixed, it was generally less than the amount discussed at the meeting. 4 I n a letter dated May 4, 2006, attached to the Compla int, Donna L. Savidge, Director of Insurance Services for PSATS, advised the Township that she wished to correct the notation in their March 28, 2006 minutes that PSATS would contribute 50% of the cost to the Township (Footnote continued on next page...)5

50% and will not be based on any percentage; and 4) t he p l an was made retroactive
to the date of hire of each t ownship employee. 5 Id ., ¶ ¶ 20 and 21 ; R.R. at 10 6

- 0 7a. The terms described by Appellants as inconsistent with the adopted plan, sub paragraphs c and d, are not mentioned at all in the Resolution; otherwise, the terms
outlined in the minutes are consistently reflected in the Resolution

.

Specifically regarding Hernandez and Parsell, Appellants aver that Parsell, but not Hernandez, was reelected to the office of township supervisor after the vote to approve the plan. Parsell sat for an additional term, but Hernandez’s term as supervisor en ded in January 2012 , at the Township’s reorganization meeting , and her employment as a township secretary ended prior thereto

. Id ., ¶¶
25

- 28 ; R.R. at 108a

.

In C ount 1

- declaratory judgment, Appellants request that common pleas enter judgment in their favo r in the nature of a declaration providing that : 1) the Board of Auditors never approved the plan established under Resolution No.
2006

- 04 for participation by supervisor

- employees; 2) Hernandez and Parsell are not entitled to pension benefits under the p lan; 3) supervisor

- employees, past, present and future, are not entitled to participate in the plan; and 4) such other relief as deemed just, reasonable, and appropriate. Id . at 14

- 15 ; R.R. at 114

- 15a

.

_____________________________ (continued...) after three years and clarify that PSA TS would never contribute anything to the plan. Rather, after three years , the Auditor General’s Office would issue state aid and the reimbursement would be based on the “unit value” designated by th at o ffice and not a certain percentage of the pension pl an. Id ., ¶ 23; R.R. at 107

- 08a. 5 This averment is inconsistent with the terms of Resolution No. 2006

- 04, which states that : “This Resolution shall become effective January 1, 2006.” Id ., Resolution No. 2006

- 04, Exhibit B to First Amended Complaint; R.R . at 126a.6 In C ount 2

- injunctive relief against the Township an d the Trust, Appellants aver that the pension plan is ultra vires and that payment pursuant thereto is in direct contravention of the Code and the Pennsylvania Constitution such that payment is illegal and constitute s per se irreparable harm. Id ., ¶¶ 62 a nd 63; R.R. at 116a. Specifically, Appellants request that the Township and Trust be enjoined from paying pension benefits to Parcell and Hernandez because the plan, as established, was not approved by the Board of A uditors. R egarding Hernandez, Appellants cite both the Code and the Pennsylvania Constitution in support of their request

. 6 Further, they request that the Trust be enjoined from distributing funds “to any former, current or future” supervisor

- employees who may clai m eligibility for benefits under the plan. Id . at 17 ; R.R. at 117a

.

Finally, in C ount 3

- injunctive relief against Hernandez and Parsell, Appellants request that the supervisor

- employees be enjoined from accepting and retaining pension benefits and that t hey disgorge all payments made to them, to date, on the ground that the plan, as established, was not approved by the Board of
A uditors. Re garding Hernandez, Appellants again contend that she is barred under both the Code and the Pennsylvania Constitution from receiving a pension. Id . at 19

- 20 ; R.R. at 106a.

Appellees filed preliminary objections to the first amended complaint, essentially maintaining that it should fail as a matter of law because the Board of
A uditors approved the plan and Hernandez did not need to be reelected to receive benefits. Common pleas sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the

6 In their brief, Appellants specify Article III, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides: “No law shall extend the term of any public officer, or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments, after his election or appointm ent.”7

complaint, concluding: 1) the approval of the Board of A uditors was evidenced by the minutes of the March 28, 2006 meeting and the ir counter signatures on
Resolution No. 2006

- 04; 2) it was not the court’s function to overturn an

“ approved ” pension plan even if the Board of A uditors failed to perform its duties with due diligence at the time of approval ; and 3) Hernandez was eligible to
receive pension benefits based on her status as an employee even though she did not serve another term as supervisor after the plan’s creation. Appellants’ appeal
followed. Appellants raise three issues: 1) whether common pleas erred in determining that the Board of A uditors approved the participation of supervisor

employees in the adopted pension plan; 2) whether it erred in determining that the participation of su ch employees d oes not constitute compensation “of the elected office” under Section 606(a) of t he Code, 7 which provides that any change in compensation of the elected office does not become effective until the beginning of a supervisor’s next term ; and 3) whether it erred in determining that Hernandez was entitled to participate in the plan without being reelected to a new term as a township supervisor. When an appellate court considers whether preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer were properly sustained, our standard of review is plenary. Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist. , 961 A.2d 96 , 101 (Pa. 2008). An appellate court may affirm a grant of preliminary objections only when, based on the facts pled, it is clear and free from doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief. Id

. For purposes of evaluating the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading, we must accept as true

7 53 P.S. § 65606(a)

.8

all well

- pled, material and relevant facts alleged in the complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts. Id

.

In addressing the first issue, we consider whether the approval that
was rendered , as described in the well

- pled facts of the amended complaint , satisfied Section 606(b) of the Code , which provides:

(b) Any benefit provided to or for the benefit of a supervisor employed by the township in any employe capacity under this act in the form of inclusion in a pension plan paid f

or in whole or in part by the township is compensation within the meaning of this act to the extent that benefit is paid for by the township and is determ ined by the board of auditors . . . . [Emphasis added.] In order to ascertain the full extent of the Board of A uditors’ statutory duty under Section 606(b), we first look to the plain language of the provision. Chanceford Aviation Props., L.L.P. v. Chanceford Twp. Bd. of Supervisors , 923 A.2d 1099, 1104 (Pa. 2007) (holding that where the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, they are presumed to be the best indication of legislative intent). A plain reading of Section 606(b) indi cates that the Board of A uditors is required both to approve the inclusion of supervisor

- employees in township pension plans, paid f

or in whole or in part by the township , and to determine pension

- benefit compensation. In that regard, Section 606(b)’s som ewhat implicitly stated requirement that the Board of A uditors approve the inclusion of supervisor

- employees in township pension plans begs the question of what
constitutes its “determination” of pension

- benefit compensation. In accordance
with Section 19 03(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 8 we consider the common and approved usage of the word “determine.” I n pertinent part,

8 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903(a).9

“determine” has been defined as follows: “to fix conclusively or authoritatively.”
Merriam

- Webster’s Collegiate Dicti onary at 340 ( 11th ed. 2004). We turn to an examination of key provisions in other sections of the Code where the legislature employed the term “determine.”

In addition to S ection 606(b), the legislature also included the term “determine” in Section 901 of the Code . Section 901 enumerates the duties of the
Board of Auditors and provides, in pertinent part, that it “shall determine the compensations for the current year authorized in section 606 for supervisors employed by the township.” 53 P.S. § 65901. Section 606(a) of the Code provides, inter alia , that, “[t]he compensation of supervisors, when employed

. . . in any employee capacity

. . . shall be determined by the board of auditors

. . . . ” 53 P.S. § 65606(a). This determination , inter alia , requ ires the Board of A uditors to determine a compensation “comparable to compensation paid in the locality for
similar services.” Id

.

Moreover, the Code’s provisions referencing the phrase “auditor approval” are further indicative that such approval be acti vely determined. Section 606(b)(3) of the Code requires auditor approval for changes in defined contribution plans , providing : “No change in the nature or rate of the contributions of a defined contribution plan and no change in the benefit formula of a defined benefit plan shall be initiated by the board of supervisors with respect to a supervisor

- employee without auditor approval .” 53 P.S. § 65606(b)(3) ( e mphasis added)

. In addition, even the Code’s provision pertaining to the rescission of the audito rs’ approval of the inclusion of supervisor

- employees in township pension plans lends support to the proposition that the Board of A uditors’ approval, once given, carries weight10

and, presumably, was actively determined. Section 606(b)(2) of the Code provi des: (2) Once given, auditor approval for inclusion of

supervisor

- employees shall not be rescinded in any subsequent years as long as the pension plan remains in effect and the supervisors remain employed by the township and continue to meet the same requ irements as other employes of the township who are eligible to participate in a pension plan; nor shall the auditors act in any way that disqualifies the pension plan under Federal Law. 53 P.S. § 65606(b)(2).

Therefore, e specially in light of the manifest intent of the legislature
in Section 606 of the Code to limit self

- interested decision

- making by supervisors, it is clear that the legislature intended for the a uditors to assume an active role as watchdogs in fulfilling thei r duties under Section 606(b). That leads us to a n analysis of the requisite specificity of the Board of A uditors’ approval. Specifically, we consider whether it can fulfill its statutory duty by approving the
terms of a specific pension plan or by j ust a pproving some plan.

In White Deer Township , 985 A.2d at 758, the Court reiterated the following fundamental principle: “[M]unicipalities are created by the state and as such, may do only those things which the state legislature has placed within the ir power in enabling statutes.” ( c itations omitted.) Further, the Court observed that, “an ordinance must be in conformity with the provisions of the enabling statutes; if
it conflicts therewith it is void.” Id . (citation omitted). Particularly apropos here,
the Court noted : “When public officials have a direct pecuniary interest in the matter being voted on, the enabling legislation which gives them the power to vote on such a matter must be strictly construed.” Id . ( citation omitted). See also
McCutcheon v. State Ethics Comm ’ n , 466 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)11

(observing that the legislature may establish a procedure whereby public officials with a dual interest can establish their own compensation, e.g. a pension, but noting that there must be strict compliance with such legislation and that it must be strictly construed) , and DeGeorge v. Young , 892 A.2d 48, 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (holding that a strict construction analysis applies when interpreting statutes where there is a potential for pu blic officials to improperly discriminate in their own favor).
Therefore , a strict construction of the Code’s provisions requiring auditor approval indicates that the Board of A uditors must g i ve its approval to the
terms of a specific pension plan, not ju st the adoption of some plan. Otherwise, th e approval process, which includes both the approval of the inclusion of supervisor

employees in employee pension plans and a determination of pension

- benefit compensation, would be rendered virtually meaningless. See Section 1921 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921 (presumption that legislature
did not intend a n absurd or unreasonable result).

The question presented here, then, is whether the curre nt Board of Auditors can attempt to invalidate a pension plan because at the meeting where the resolution was passed by former supervisors and approved and signed by former

a uditors, some representations were made which may have been inaccurate. This
dete rmination will necessarily involve a balancing of the interest in the finality of legislation, which is facially regular in all respects, against the importance of insuring that auditors can play their watchdog role with an accurate understanding
of that w hich they are asked to approve. In that regard, there is a strong12

presumption regarding the finality of legislation

. 9 T here is also a presumption that municipal officials are acting within the purview of their elected offices and that their acts are regu lar and in conformity with the applicable law

. 10 See Whitemarsh Twp. Auth. v. Elwert , 196 A.2d 843 , 848 (Pa. 19 64 ) (holding that, “[t]here is a factual presumption that municipal officers are properly acting for the public good” ) , and Price v. Grencavage , 531 A.2d 108 , 111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (holding that, there is a presumption that the actions of public officials are within the limits of their discretion such that the judicial power to interfere in matters challenging
acts committed to their discretion is highly limited)

.

In the present case, based on the well

- pled and material facts, there is
no indication that the Board of A uditors did not give its approval to a specific pension plan in accordance with its statutory duties under the Code. This is
somewhat in contrast to the situation in White Deer T ownship , 985 A.2d at 765, where the record did not “disclose what, if any, role the board of auditors played in approving the post

- retirement medical benefits granted by the Ordinance.” Here , th e former auditors, by virtue of their signatures, approved and signed the

9 Notwithstanding the fact that the enabling legislation requires auditor approval for the inclusion of supervisor

- employees in a pension plan funded, in whole or in part, by the township, the supervisors’ resolution adopting such a plan constitutes the ena ctment of an ordinance such that there is a presumption of legality. See White Deer Twp. , 985 A.2d at 765 (holding that, “[t]he board of supervisors was empowered to grant to supervisor

- employees post

- retirement medical benefits as a form of deferred comp ensation in accord with the terms of Section 606(a), including auditor approval”) and Section 5571.1 (d)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1(d)(1) (providing that, “[a]n ordinance shall be presumed to be valid and to have been enacted or adopted i n strict compliance with statutory procedure.”). 10 Auditors are elected. Section 404(a) of the Code, as amended , added by Section 1 of the Act of November 9, 1995, P.L. 350, 53 P.S. § 65404(a). As auditors, they may not “at the same time hold any other e lective or appointive township office or position or be an employe of the township for which he has been elected or appointed.” Section 404(b) of the Code, 53 P.S. § 65404(b).13

resolution that was passed by the former supervisors. The fact that the plan may have cost more or less than initially estimated and the fact that the Commonwealth’s contribution, i f any, was unknown, are of no moment. Those could not realistically be known with any certainty at the time the resolution was adopted and the resolution signed by the auditors contained no such terms

. Therefore, a ny facts averred that the Board of A udit ors’ approval may have been
based on flawed estimates of future financial performance does not establish a violation of Section 606(b). The difference s in cost of the plan, to the extent they were significant, were lower than the estimates and so were not material, any more than the question of which state agency would subsidize the plan. Moreover, after years of experience, the Board made no averment that the actual contribution s from the state varied materially from the estimate reflected in the minutes

. Finally, there is nothing in the averments to suggest that the estimates were intentionally false or made by anyone with a corrupt motive. The facts alleged here simply do not present the ki nd of extraordinary circumstances, such as the presence of fra ud, which would justify looking behind the signatures of elected officials in what
could amount to a n unwarranted fishing expedition , particularly many years after
the fact

. See Township of Perkiomen v. Mest , 522 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. 1987) (holding that, in order to avoid government by the judiciary, “courts must use appropriate self [

- ] restraint when asked to review or second

- guess decisions of elected municipal officials.”).

Appellants’ second and third issues are also without merit. T hey argue that the participation of supervisor

- employees in the pension plan constitutes compensation “of the elected office” under Section 606(a) of the Code such that it would not become effective until the beginning of a supervisor’s next term and14

that, accordingly, Hernandez was not entitled to participate in the plan without being reelected to a new term as a township supervisor. Section 606(a) of the
Code , however, clearly draws the distinction between the compensation of supervisors as elected offic ials, whose salary is capped by statute for six years until their next term of office, and the salary of supervisor

- employees, whose salary is discretionary with the Board of A uditors. In that regard, two provisions from Section 606(a) are illustrative :

T he compensation of supervisors, when employed as roadmasters, laborers, secretary, treasurer, assistant secretary, assistant treasurer or in any employe capacity not otherwise prohibited by this or any other act, shall be determined by the board of auditor s , at an hourly, daily, weekly, semi

- monthly or monthly basis . . . . [Emphasis added.]

. . . . Any change in salary, compensation or emoluments of the elected office becomes effective at the beginning of the next term of the supervisor. [Emphasis added .]

In addition , specifically regarding pension benefits and supervisor

employees, Section 606(b)(1) provides:

(1) Supervisors are eligible for inclusion in township pension plans only if they are employed by the township in any employe capacity under thi s act. In order to be eligible for inclusion in the plans, supervisor

employes must meet the same requirements as other employes of the township who are eligible to participate in a pension plan. Pension plans shall not improperly discriminate in favor o f a supervisor

- employe

. 53 P.S. § 65606(b)(1). Further, as we noted previously regarding the rescission of auditor approval for the participation of supervisor

- employees in employee pension plans, such approval may not be rescinded “as long as the pension plan remains in effect and the supervisors remain employed by the township and continue to meet15

the same requirements as other employes of the township who are eligible to participate in a pension plan . . . .” 53 P.S. § 65606(b)(2).

Moreover, Section 9 01 of the Code requires that the Board of
A uditors set the current salary for supervisor

- employees each year. Supervisors who are not employees are barred from participation in the pension plan by Section 606(b)(7) of the Code, 53 P.S. § 65606(b)(7). The refore, the pension benefit (which is the same for all employees whether they are supervisors or not) is compensation for the supervisors’ role as employees, not in their role as elected
officials. Thus , it is not compensation “of the elected office” whic h may be changed only at the beginning of a new term in office. For the same reason, since Hernandez continued to be an employee, whether she was reelected to the office of supervisor was irrelevant to her right to participate in the plan. Where, as here, the language of the statutory provisions is clear, that language is presumed to be the best indication of legislative intent and there is no need to ascertain that intent by
consider ing the factors set forth in Section 1921(c) (1)

- (8) of the Statutory
Construction Act of 1972. 11 Chanceford , 923 A.2d at 1104

.

Accordingly, we affirm.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

11 T hese factors include the occasion and necessity for the statute, the circums tances under which it was enacted, the mischief to be remedied, the object to be attained, the former law, the consequences of a particular interpretation, any contemporaneous legislative history, and legislative and administrative interpretations of the s tatute at issue. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921( c)(1)

- (8).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Delaware Township Board of : Auditors; Dennis Lee; Michael : Dickerson; and Jane E. Neufeld, : Appellants :

: v. : No. 1601 C.D. 2014

: Delaware Township; Pennsylvania : Municipalities Pension Trust; : Ileana F. Hernandez and Thaddeus : Parsell :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 201 6 , the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County is hereby AFFIRMED.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge