J-S02041-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

WENDY JONES-KEAHEY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GEORGE B. KEAHEY

Appellant No. 373 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered November 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Domestic Relations at No: 2009-003221/PACSES 164111368

BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: Filed March 21, 2016

Appellant, George B. Keahey (“Husband”), appeals pro se from the 

November 18, 2014 order incarcerating him for contempt of court. We 

affirm. 

Husband filed a complaint in divorce on November 30, 2009. On three 

occasions—March 15, 2011, June 19, 2013, and November 18, 2013, the 

trial court ordered Husband to pay counsel fees to Appellee, Wendy JonesKeahey (“Wife”). Husband failed to comply with all three orders and Wife 

filed a petition for contempt. The trial court conducted a hearing on the 

contempt petition on March 5, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the trial court 

entered an order finding Husband in contempt and ordering him to pay the 

outstanding attorneys’ fees plus an additional amount attendant to the 

contempt proceeding. The trial court denied Husband’s motion for 
J-S02041-16

- 2 -

reconsideration of that order. Husband filed an appeal challenging the 

merits of the March 12, 2014 contempt order. This Court affirmed in an 

unpublished memorandum filed on April 24, 2015. Keahey v. Keahey, 121 

A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. 2015) (952 EDA 2014). 

While the appeal of the March 12, 2014 order was pending, the trial 

court, at Wife’s request, scheduled a sanctions hearing for November 18, 

2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered Husband 

incarcerated until he paid a purge amount of $11,276.00 plus $500.00 in 

counsel fees for the November 18, 2014 sanctions hearing. Husband paid 

and was released from incarceration on November 19, 2014. In this appeal, 

Husband argues the trial lacked authority to impose sanctions while the 

underlying March 12, 2014 order was on appeal.1 

We conclude the trial court did not err in enforcing its contempt order 

while that order was on appeal. Husband relies solely on Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a), 

which provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an 

appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or 

____________________________________________

1

 Husband is vague as to the relief he seeks, simply requesting “reversal” of 

the November 18, 2014 order. Husband’s Brief at 9. The purge amount 

helped satisfy a debt whose validity this Court upheld in our memorandum of 

April 24, 2015. Thus, it is not at all clear that reversal of the order on 

appeal would entitle Husband to recoup that amount. We cannot order 

Husband’s release from prison, as his imprisonment lasted only one night. 

At most, a favorable outcome in this appeal would render Husband’s brief 

incarceration erroneous and perhaps entitle him to recoup the attorneys’ 

fees associated with the November 18, 2014 hearing. 
J-S02041-16

- 3 -

other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter.” 

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a). Husband ignores Rule 1701(b)(2), which provides that a 

trial court can “enforce any order entered in the matter, unless the effect of 

the order has been superseded as prescribed in this chapter.” Pa.R.A.P. 

1701(b)(2). Chapter 17 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure contains a rule 

governing supersedeas in domestic relations matters: 

(a) General rule. Except as provided by subdivision (b), 

an appeal from an order involving solely the payment of money 

shall, unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter, operate 

as a supersedeas upon the filing with the clerk of the lower court 

of appropriate security in the amount of 120% of the amount 

found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid. Where the 

amount is payable over a period of time, the amount found due 

for the purposes of this rule shall be the aggregate amount 

payable within 18 months after entry of the order.

(b) Domestic relations matters. An appeal from an 

order of child support, spousal support, alimony, alimony 

pendente lite, equitable distribution or counsel fees and costs 

shall operate as a supersedeas only upon application to and 

order of the trial court and the filing of security as required by 

subdivision (a). The amount and terms of security shall be within 

the discretion of the trial court.

Pa.R.A.P. 1731 (emphasis added). Husband fails to address Rule 1731 and 

fails to explain whether he applied for supersedeas. We could reject 

Husband’s argument on that basis alone. In any event, our review of the 

docket indicates that Husband applied for supersedeas and the trial court 

granted the application on June 27, 2014. The trial court vacated the June 

27, 2014 order on September 30, 2014, noting that Husband failed to meet 

the criteria for supersedeas. Wife asserts that Husband failed to post 
J-S02041-16

- 4 -

appropriate security. Wife’s Brief at 7. We find nothing in the record to 

indicate Husband posted the required security.2 Under the circumstances of 

this case, the trial court had authority to enforce its order pursuant to Rule 

1701(b)(2). Husband’s argument to the contrary lacks merit. 

Husband also argues that the trial court erred in imposing $500.00 in 

counsel fees in addition to the purge amount. Husband’s Brief at 7-8. 

Husband fails to cite any authority for this argument, and therefore has 

waived it. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 

2012), appeal denied, 56 A.3d 398 (Pa. 2012). 

Finally, Husband argues the trial court erred in failing to conduct a 

hearing to determine whether he had the present ability to pay the purge 

amount. On the contrary, the docket indicates that in an order of October 

23, 2014, the trial court directed Husband to bring documentation of his 

year-to-date income and expenses and his 2013 tax return, among other 

things, to the November 18, 2014 hearing. At the hearing, after the trial 

court referenced the October 23 order, Husband introduced exhibits 

documenting his financial status. N.T. Hearing, 11/18/14, at 6-7. The trial 

____________________________________________

2

 The docket from Husband’s appeal at 952 EDA 2014 reveals that, on July 

15, 2014, Husband filed in this Court an emergency application for stay of 

execution of the trial court’s contempt order. See Pa.R.A.P. 1732. This 

Court denied that application the next day, noting that Husband failed to 

satisfy the requirements for a stay set forth in Pennsylvania Pub. Util. 

Comm’n v. Process Gas Consumers Grp., 467 A.2d 805, 808-09 (Pa. 

1983). Order, 7/16/14. 
J-S02041-16

- 5 -

court previously assessed Husband’s ability to pay, but the court scheduled 

the November 18 hearing so that Husband could provide updated financial 

information. Id. at 6. The parties spent the bulk of the hearing addressing 

Husband’s finances. Husband satisfied the purge amount shortly after the 

trial court incarcerated him. Finding no merit in any of Husband’s 

arguments, we affirm the trial court’s order. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2016