J-A08017-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ALLEN R. MILLER AND JANET M. 

MILLER FAMILY TRUST, EDWARD T. 

OTT, NANCY O. OTT, DAVID L. OTT, 

LISA R. OTT, ROBERT G. OTT, PAUL 

R. OTT, LORI J. OTT, AND GREGORY 

D. CONKLIN

v.

JAMES A. MAHAN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2171 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 17, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at 

No(s): C-48-CV-2019-9512

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 11, 2024

Appellant, James A. Mahan, appeals pro se from the August 17, 2023

order denying his petition for special relief and finding him in contempt of the 

trial court’s prior orders. We quash Appellant’s appeal and direct the 

Prothonotary to remove the above-captioned matter from the A08/24 

argument panel. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. 

Appellees1 are owners of parcels of land in Upper Mount Bethel Township, 

____________________________________________

1 Appellees, who were plaintiffs before the trial court, include: Allen Miller and 

Janet H. Miller Family Trust (“Appellees Miller”), Edward T. Ott and Nancy O. 

Ott, his wife, David L. Ott and Lisa R. Ott, his wife, Robert G. Ott and Lori J. 

Ott, his wife (“Appellees Ott”), and Gregory Conklin (“Appellee Conklin”). 
J-A08017-24

- 2 -

Pennsylvania, which are accessible only through a private road known as 

Kovar Lane that traverses through Appellant’s property. On October 10, 2019, 

Appellees filed a civil complaint against Appellant, seeking to quiet title and 

enforce their easement rights by enjoining Appellant from impeding access to 

Appellees’ properties. A non-jury trial was held in September 2020. On 

February 10, 2021, the trial court issued its verdict which stated: 

1. [Appellees] have express easements, by virtue of their chains 

of title, to use the roadway known as Kovar Lane, as described 

as Old Kovar Lane in the [trial] court's [opinion], to access their 

properties;

2. [Appellant] is enjoined from blocking, impeding, or in any 

way obstructing [Appellees’] use of Kovar Lane to access their 

properties;

3. [Appellant] shall restore the north-south portion of Kovar 

Lane to its prior condition, passable by vehicle, within ninety 

(90) days and at his own expense. Until then, [Appellees] may 

continue to use the altered footpath of Kovar Lane, described 

as New Kovar Lane in the [trial] court's [opinion], to access 

their properties;

4. [Appellant] shall restore the entrance of Kovar Lane at River 

Road to its prior condition within ninety (90) days at his own 

expense. Until then, [Appellees] may continue to use the 

altered entrance to Kovar Lane;

5. [Appellant] is not required to remove the gate on his property 

but may not close it or otherwise obstruct [Appellees’] access 

to Kovar Lane; and

6. [Appellees] are entitled to court costs.

Trial Court Order, 2/10/21, at 2. Appellant later discontinued an appeal from 

the February 10, 2021 order.
J-A08017-24

- 3 -

Thereafter, on May 6, 2021, Appellees filed a petition for contempt

against Appellant. In particular, Appellees claimed Appellant failed to comply 

with the trial court’s February 10, 2021 order by: 

(1) failing to restore the “soft” curve of Old Kover Lane, 

(2) failing to restore Old Kover Lane to its original passable 

condition, (3) closing the gate and preventing [Appellees] from 

accessing New Kover Lane, (4) moving the original footprint of 

Old Kover Lane, and (5) placing boulders in the middle of Old 

Kover Lane north of where New Kover Lane ends. 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/17/23 at 4. 

Ultimately, on March 25, 2022, the trial court found Appellant in civil 

contempt and ordered that, within 90 days, he pay $10,000.00 each to 

Appellees Miller, Appellees Ott, and Appellee Conkling. Id. The order also set 

forth the following purge condition: 

[Appellant] may purge himself of the contempt and sanctions 

by conveying express easements to [Appellees] from River 

Road over the new bridge entrance to Old Kovar Lane, over Old 

Kovar Lane to New Kovar Lane, and over New Kovar Lane to 

where Old Kovar Lane ends, ... to access their properties. Said 

easements must contain a metes and bounds description, in 

recordable form, at [Appellant's] expense. Alternatively, 

[Appellant] may purge himself of the contempt and sanctions 

by hiring, at his own expense, a third-party contractor, chosen 

by [Appellees], to bring Old Kovar Lane into compliance with 

the [trial] court's [o]rder of February 10, 2021, within thirty 

(30) days.

Id. at 4-5. Lastly, the order stated that Appellant must “fully comply with the 

[trial] court's February 10, 2021 order” and:

1. Reinstall the soft curve at the portion of Old Kovar Lane 

where [Appellees] are required to make a left-hand turn from 

River Road;
J-A08017-24

- 4 -

2. Restore Old Kovar Lane to its original condition;

3. Permit [Appellees] to use New Kovar Lane until easements 

have been conveyed, the restoration has been completed to 

[Appellees’] satisfaction, or pending further order of court;

4. [P]ay [Appellees] the sum of $3,717.00 for attorney's fees 

within thirty (30) days;

5. [R]emove the gate he installed on the east-west section of 

Old Kovar Lane just before the left turn onto New Kovar Lane 

within thirty (30) days; and

6. Within fourteen (14) days, . . . remove all boulders and rocks 

placed on or adjacent to Old Kovar Lane since February 10, 

2021.

Id. The trial court’s March 25, 2022 order was subsequently affirmed by this 

Court. Miller v. Mahan, 2022 WL 7298003 *1 (Pa. Super. 2022) 

(non-precedential decision). 

On April 5, 2022, Appellees filed a second contempt petition against 

Appellant. In their petition, Appellees alleged that, on or about December 9, 

2022, they “obtained a proposal from Grace Industries, Inc., a reputable 

construction contractor in Lehigh Valley[, Pennsylvania,] who provided a 

proposal to restore Old Kover Lane to its original condition.” Appellees’ 

Petition, 4/5/22, at ¶ 9. Appellees claimed they provided Appellant a copy of 

the Grace Industries Inc.’s proposal, but he “failed and refused to contract 

with [them].” Id. at ¶ 11. In addition, Appellees averred that Appellant 

“failed to pay the[m the] civil penalty” and “provide [them] easements.” Id.

at ¶ 12. Based upon the foregoing, Appellees claimed Appellant failed to 

comply with the trial court’s February 10, 2021 and March 25, 2022 orders. 

Id. at ¶¶ 14-16. Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for special relief on 
J-A08017-24

- 5 -

May 11, 2023, as well as an amended petition on May 30, 2023. In his 

petition, Appellant sought 12 different forms of relief, including the following: 

(1) the court accept the reopening [of] the north-south portion of Kovar Lane; 

(2) the court prohibit Appellees from using the New Kover Lane and allow 

Appellant to use his gate as he sees fit; (3) the court order Appellees to deposit 

$3,000.00 into an escrow account for roadway maintenance; (4) the court 

prohibit Appellees from hindering contractors in the trimming of trees and 

other work needed to keep the road in repair; (5) the court order Appellees 

to share in the cost of fencing; (6) the court order an investigation into the 

“misrepresentation” by Bob Ott and Grace Industries; (7) the court order all 

deeds be rewritten to reflect discoveries made to correct errors of the past; 

(8) the court order all Appellees not to cross the Conklin E12-7-A-3/Mahan 

E12-7-2d border property line. 

A hearing was held on Appellees’ petition for contempt and Appellant’s 

petition for special relief on August 9, 2023. On August 17, 2023, the trial 

court issued an order denying Appellant’s petition for special relief. See Trial 

Court Order, 8/17/23, at 1-2. In addition, the trial court issued a contempt 

citation to Appellant and scheduled a hearing on the citation for October 23, 

2023. Id. at 2. The trial court identified the following purge conditions to be 

completed by Appellant on or before October 20, 2023. 

1. [Appellant] shall enter into and fund a contract with Grace 

Industries, Inc., or another contractor chosen by [Appellees], 

to: 
J-A08017-24

- 6 -

a. restore the north-south portion of Old Kover Lane, as 

described in the [trial court’s] decision and verdict filed on 

February 10, 2021, to its original footprint and in a 

condition that the contractor determines to be passable by 

vehicles, including, but not limited to, fire, police, and 

ambulance vehicles; and 

b. repair, reinstall, and/or restore the soft curve at the 

portion of Old Kover Lane where [Appellees] are required 

to make a left-hand turn from east/west to north/south to 

a condition that the contractor determines to be passable 

by vehicles including, but not limited to, fire, police, and 

ambulance vehicle[s], without leaving the roadway while 

navigating the turn. 

2. [Appellant] shall pay [Appellees] the sum of $21,100.00 for 

attorney’s fees. 

3. [Appellant] shall reimburse [Appellees] the sum of $521.05 

for gravel.

Id. at 2-3. Finally, the trial court indicated that, if Appellant failed to complete 

the aforementioned purge conditions, and if it “determine[d] at the hearing 

on October 23, 2023[] that [he] willfully violated [its] prior orders entered in 

this case,” the court would “consider imposing sanctions.” Id. at 3. This 

appeal followed. 

We first consider, sua sponte, whether we have jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Knopick v. Boyle, 189 A.3d 432, 436 (Pa. Super. 2018). It is 

well-settled that 

an appeal may be taken from a final order or an order certified 

as a final order; an interlocutory order as of right; an 

interlocutory order by permission; or a collateral order. 

Takosky v. Henning, 906 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal 

citations and footnotes omitted). “A final order is one that disposes of all the 
J-A08017-24

- 7 -

parties and all the claims in a case, is expressly defined as a final order by 

statute, or is entered as a final order pursuant to the trial court’s 

determination.” Id. A contempt order is considered final and, therefore, 

appealable, if it contains a finding of contempt and “imposes sanctions on the 

offending party.” Id.; see also Foulk v. Foulk, 789 A.2d 254, 257 (Pa. 

Super. 2001) (en banc) (“This Court has held that an order finding a party in 

contempt for failure to comply with a prior order of court is final and 

appealable, if sanctions are imposed.”); Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 487 

(Pa. Super. 2006) (“With regard to civil contempt, we observe: ‘for a contempt 

order to be properly appealable, it is only necessary that the order impose 

sanctions on the alleged contemnor, and no further court order be required 

before the sanctions take effect.’”) (citation and emphasis omitted). If 

sanctions are not imposed, a contempt order is interlocutory and not 

appealable. Takosky, 906 A.2d at 1258. An order granting or denying 

injunctive relief, on the other hand, is considered an interlocutory order 

appealable as of right. See Wolk v. Sch. Dist. of Lower Merion, 197 A.3d 

730, 739 (Pa. 2018) (explaining that Rule 311(a)(4) provides this Court with 

jurisdiction over an order granting an injunction).

Upon review, it is apparent that we do not have jurisdiction over the 

instant appeal. Initially, we note that, while the trial court’s order issued a 

contempt citation to Appellant, it also contemplated a subsequent hearing 

dedicated to determining whether Appellant violated prior orders of court and 

whether sanctions should be imposed. See Trial Court Order, 8/17/23, at 2-3. 
J-A08017-24

- 8 -

We therefore conclude that the trial court’s August 17, 2023 contempt order 

was not final and appealable because the trial court did not impose sanctions 

upon Appellant. 

We recognize, however, that the trial court’s August 17, 2023 order also 

denied Appellant’s petition for special relief and, as such, could be construed 

as an order denying a request for injunctive relief, which is appealable as of 

right. See Pa.R.A.P 311(a)(4). Yet, it is evident that Appellant’s various 

requests for relief primarily concern issues previously raised, litigated, and 

disposed of in the trial court’s February 11, 2021 and March 25, 2022 orders. 

We therefore conclude that, because Appellant’s most recent demands simply 

challenge the trial court’s prior substantive rulings and determinations (which 

have long been deemed final), the order challenged on appeal cannot be 

viewed as one which grants or denies injunctive relief.2 

____________________________________________

2 The trial court originally ordered Appellant to restore the entrance of Kover 

Lane at River Road to its prior condition. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/17/23, 

at 3-5. In its August 17, 2023 order, the trial court vacated this portion of its 

prior order because, during the August 9, 2023 hearing, there was evidence 

presented, for the first time, that “restoring an exact version of the prior 

bridge entering Kover Lane from River Road would be impossible absent 

variances and/or other relief from government agencies and/or 

municipalities.” Id. at 7. The August 17, 2023 order neither denied new 

requests for injunctive relief nor imposed new affirmative obligations

predicated on Appellees’ easement rights. Instead, the order challenged on 

appeal simply modified the manner by which its prior final announcement

would be implemented. As such, we conclude that the trial court’s 

modification of its prior orders does not alter our conclusion that we lack 

jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. 

 
J-A08017-24

- 9 -

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that this appeal is not properly 

before this Court. As such, we quash Appellant’s appeal and direct the 

Prothonotary to remove the above-captioned matter from the A08/24 

argument panel.3

Appeal quashed. 

Date: 3/11/2024

____________________________________________

3

Importantly, we note Appellant’s brief filed with this court omits all of the 

requisite components of an appellate brief (including, particularly, a discussion 

of relevant issues with citation to pertinent authority). Hence, even if this 

Court had jurisdiction, Appellant’s appeal would be subject to dismissal for 

failure to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (briefs “shall conform in all material respects with the 

requirements of the [appellate rules]” and appeals shall be subject to 

dismissal where defects in an appellant's brief are substantial).