Court Opinion

ID: 9352768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 18:12:01.819556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:59:44.641302
License: Public Domain

J-A26022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    CHAD BATTERMAN                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    SILVIA SANTO                               :
                                               :
                       Appellee                :      No. 1371 EDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 2019-06877

BEFORE:       BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                 FILED JANUARY 9, 2023

        Appellant, Chad Batterman (“Father”), appeals from the order entered

in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on April 27, 2022, which

found Father in contempt of the court’s prior custody orders and did not find

Mother in contempt of the court’s orders. We affirm.

        The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case

as follows:

           On July 16, 2021, after a five-day custody trial spanning the
           course of months, the Honorable Melissa S. Sterling issued
           a detailed and expansive custody order (the “July 16, 2021
           Order”), granting Mother sole legal custody and primary
           physical custody of the minor children, C.B. ([born October
           2015]) and D.B. ([born October 2017]) (hereinafter the
           “Children”), subject to Father’s periods of partial custody.
           This appeal results from an April 27, 2022 Order finding
           Father in contempt and imposing sanctions.
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A26022-22

       The relevant factual background follows. Judge Sterling’s
       July 16, 2021 Order provides that Mother has primary
       physical custody of the [C]hildren and Father has partial
       physical custody. Father’s custody is every other weekend
       (from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 a.m.) and
       every Tuesday from 8:00 a.m. until Wednesday at 7:00
       p.m. The exchanges take place at the Abington Township
       Police Department.

       In the weeks leading up to Wednesday April 20, 2022,
       Father filed three petitions requesting emergency court
       intervention for Mother to relinquish custodial days so that
       Father could have additional days to celebrate Passover
       (over and above the holiday schedule set forth in the July
       16, 2021 Order which includes days for Passover). Father
       acknowledged that the July 16, 2021 Order would permit
       Father to have custody of the Children Tuesday evening of
       that week only (in addition to the following weekend) and
       he was requesting emergency relief permitting additional
       days.

       The [c]ourt denied each of Father’s three petitions—the final
       such denial was by an April 19, 2022 Order that included
       the following language: “The parties shall strictly comply
       with the holiday schedule set forth in Judge Sterling’s July
       16, 2021 Order.”

       Mother filed an emergency petition Thursday April 21, 2022
       alleging that Father had failed to return the [C]hildren on
       Wednesday April 20, 2022 as required by the July 16, 2021
       Order (and this [c]ourt’s April 19, 2022 Order). Father filed
       a response that same day providing his explanation for why
       he failed to return the children (essentially providing that
       there was some confusion at the police station exchange
       point and that he was otherwise unilaterally using makeup
       time owed to him). Father subsequently filed an emergency
       petition requesting that Mother’s alleged boyfriend not
       appear for exchanges (Mother later testified that she does
       not have a boyfriend and that no one was with her for the
       Wednesday evening exchange).

       Mother filed an amended emergency petition Friday April 22,
       2022 averring that Father was still retaining custody of the

                                   -2-
J-A26022-22

       children in violation of the July 16, 2021 Order. That is,
       Father had refused to exchange the Children on Thursday
       night in addition to Wednesday night.

       The [c]ourt issued an April 22, 2022 Order scheduling a
       hearing and providing the following language: “Pending
       further order of the [c]ourt, Mother is granted sole physical
       custody of the parties’ two children.           Father shall
       immediately release custody of the Children to Mother if
       they are in his custody.” [(Order, 4/22/22).] The April 22,
       2022 Order further authorized law enforcement to take
       custody of the Children and return them to Mother.

       On Wednesday, April 27, 2022, the [c]ourt presided over a
       hearing which was scheduled on an emergency basis. At
       the hearing, the [c]ourt heard testimony from Mother and
       Father and reviewed exhibits submitted by the parties.

       Mother testified that in the hours leading up to the 7:00
       p.m. exchange time on Wednesday, April 20th, Father sent
       a series of Our Family Wizard messages confirming that he
       “will not be at tonight’s custody exchange at 7:00 p.m. [and
       that] [t]he next exchange will take place on Monday, April
       25th.” (N.T. Hearing, 4/27/22, at 13-15). Father’s stated
       reasons to Mother for unilaterally assuming extra custodial
       days was based on the Passover holiday (Father wanted
       additional days for celebrations) and alleged custodial
       makeup time that Father was choosing to take. (Id.)
       Mother nevertheless went to the Abington Police Station at
       7:00 p.m. but Father was not there with the Children. (Id.)

       Over the next several hours, there was communications
       between the parties and both parties ultimately went to the
       police station between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. However,
       Father ultimately “denied the exchange,” “would not hand
       over the children” and left the police station. (Id. at 18-
       25). Mother also testified that Father did not return the
       Children on Thursday, April 21, 2022. (Id. at 27-28).
       Mother did not receive the Children until Monday, April 25,
       2022 despite the April 21, 2022 Order directing that Father
       “immediately release custody of the Children to Mother”.
       (Id. at 117).

                                   -3-
J-A26022-22

         Father testified that, indeed, he did not return the Children
         on Wednesday or Thursday of the week in question—despite
         the [c]ourt’s Orders–for “multiple reasons” including that (i)
         he was protecting the Children from the police presence at
         the Wednesday, April 20, 2022 exchange point, (ii) Mother’s
         boyfriend had threatened him at the police station exchange
         point prompting him to leave with the Children, (iii) Mother
         had previously agreed for Father to have additional days for
         the 2022 Passover holiday, (iv) the July 16, 2022 Order is
         somehow unclear with respect to the 2022 Passover
         schedule and (v) Father was otherwise entitled to makeup
         time anyway and was merely exercising his rights in that
         regard. (Id. at 48-128).

         The [c]ourt found Father’s explanations for failing to comply
         with the July 16, 2021 Order to be calculated and incredible.
         Essentially, Father provided a laundry list of excuses for why
         he felt justified in violating court orders and withholding
         custody of the Children for the evenings of Wednesday, April
         21, 2022 and Thursday, April 22, 2022. Accordingly, the
         [c]ourt determined that Father was in contempt of [the] July
         16, 2021 Order and this [c]ourt’s April 19, 2022 Order. Of
         note, Father has been found in contempt of numerous
         custody orders both in Montgomery County and
         Philadelphia.

(Trial Court Opinion, 8/8/22, at 1-4) (citation formatting provided; some

emphasis omitted). On April 27, 2022, the court issued an order setting forth

the following:

         1. Mother’s Petitions styled Emergency Petition for
         Contempt of Custody and Special Relief To Return Children
         to Mother and Sanction (Seq. 466) and Amended
         Emergency Petition for Contempt of Custody and Special
         Relief To Return Children to Mother and Sanction (Seq. 471)
         are GRANTED to the extent set forth herein.

         2. Father is in CONTEMPT of the July 16, 2021 Custody
         Order of the Honorable Melissa S. Sterling and the April 19,
         2022 Order of the Undersigned.

         3. Father is hereby sanctioned as follows:

                                     -4-
J-A26022-22

          a) Subject to Paragraph 3(b) herein, Father is
          sentenced to imprisonment for 15 days in the
          Montgomery County Correctional Facility to begin
          June 27, 2022—60 days from today’s date. [Father]
          shall report to the Montgomery County Correctional
          Facility at 9:00 a.m. on June 27, 2022 to begin serving
          the sentence. Father shall bring a copy of this Court
          Order with him to the prison. This sentence shall be
          served in the Montgomery County Correctional Facility
          itself and not by way of electronic monitoring or house
          arrest.1

          b) To avoid the sanction of incarceration set forth in
          Paragraph 3(a), the [c]ourt provides the following two
          alternate conditions: Father may either (i) make
          payment to the Montgomery Child Advocacy Project
          (“MCAP”) in the amount of $1,000 within 60 days of
          this Order, (i.e., by June 27, 2022),2 or (ii) complete
          60 hours of community service by June 27, 2022. The
          community service must be unpaid, on behalf of a
          non-profit entity and designed to benefit the public.
          Prior to beginning any community service hereunder,
          Father shall notify Chambers for pre-approval. Father
          shall ensure beforehand that his community service
          supervisor is willing to confirm the completed hours in
          writing and verbally with Chambers.

          c) If Father makes payment in full or completes the
          community service set forth in Paragraph 3(b), the
          incarceration provided in Paragraph 3(a) shall be
          voided.3

          d) Father is placed on probation for a period of six (6)
          months to date from today.4

          e) Conditions of Father’s probation include the
          following: (i) Father must strictly comply with Judge
          Sterling’s July 16, 2021 Custody Order and all other
          Orders entered in connection with this custody matter
          (i.e., any Order filed in connection with Montgomery
          County case number 2019-06877), and (ii) Father
          must refrain from filing any frivolous petitions.

                                   -5-
J-A26022-22

          f) If the [c]ourt becomes on notice that Father may
          have violated this probation, the [c]ourt shall
          schedule Criminal Contempt proceedings, providing
          Father with the “the essential procedural safeguards”
          as contemplated by Pennsylvania case law.5 Any such
          Criminal Contempt proceedings may be in addition to
          Civil Contempt proceedings if Father is alleged to have
          violated a [c]ourt Order.

          g) Father shall relinquish custody time of the children
          by way of “makeup time” to Mother. The [c]ourt
          understands that, as a result of the [c]ourt’s April 21,
          2022 Order granting her temporary sole physical
          custody, Mother has had custody of the children for a
          period of time that otherwise would have been with
          Father. The [c]ourt concludes that this time with
          Mother constitutes the entirety of the “makeup time”
          for which she is entitled.6

          __________________________________________
            1 The dominant purpose of the sanctions set

            forth herein, including the sanction of
            imprisonment, is to prospectively coerce Father
            into complying with future [c]ourt Orders—
            which is in the best interest of the children. See
            Goodman v. Goodman, 556 A.2d 1379
            (Pa.Super. 1989), appeal denied, 523 Pa. 642,
            565 A.2d 1167 (1989).                 Father has
            demonstrated a settled purpose of assigning his
            own personal interpretation to Orders that
            contradict their plain language, and has ignored
            numerous warnings that future violations may
            result in sanctions. The [c]ourt hopes that
            these sanctions will convince Father to comply
            with existing and future Orders.

              2 Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5323(g), the
              [c]ourt may fine a defendant up to $500 per civil
              contempt in connection with a custody order.
              The [c]ourt finds that Father is in contempt
              based on his refusal to return the children to
              Mother on April 20, 2022 and April 21, 2022.
              The [c]ourt is hereby fining Father $500 for each
              of these two specific dates that Father was in

                                    -6-
J-A26022-22

              contempt. The [c]ourt finds that Father has the
              resources to pay this fine based on its findings
              following the March 11, 2022 hearing with
              respect to one of Father’s In Forma Pauperis
              petitions. This $1,000 fine is in addition to the
              $500 fine previously imposed on Father
              pursuant to the [u]ndersigned’s March 9, 2022
              Order finding Father in contempt.

              3The alternative conditions of a $ 1,000 fine or
              60 hours of community service are to be
              considered purge conditions pursuant to 23
              Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5323(g)(2).

              4  This probationary sentence is imposed
              pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5323(g)(1)(iii).

              5 See Ingebrethsen v. Ingebrethsen, 661
              A.2d 403 (Pa.Super. 1995).

              6 In filings, and during today’s hearing, Father
              repeatedly referenced custodial “makeup time”
              that he asserts Mother owes to him and which
              he has used to justify making unilateral
              decisions regarding custody transfers. To the
              contrary, however, the October 21, 2021 Order
              of the Honorable Jeffrey S. Saltz references
              makeup time that Father owes Mother. There is
              nothing in the historic record of this case to
              confirm that Mother owes Father any makeup
              time. In an effort to ensure clarity, the [c]ourt
              hereby provides, following testimony at today’s
              hearing and a review of the Our Family Wizard
              records introduced into evidence, that Mother
              does not owe Father any makeup time. Father’s
              future invocation of alleged “makeup time” to
              deprive Mother of custody shall be considered
              contemptuous.

       4. Mother is found NOT IN CONTEMPT of any custody Order.

       5. Father’s petition styled Emergency Motion for Civil
       Disobedience of the July 16, 2021 Order and Special Relief
       Prohibitiing [sic] Mother’s Boyfriend Beleived [sic] To Be

                                    -7-
J-A26022-22

         Idendtiffied [sic] As “Ricky” From Being Around the Parties’
         Children as Well" [sic] As From All Custody Exchanges (Seq.
         469) is DENIED.

         6. The provision in the [c]ourt’s April 21, 2022 Order
         granting Mother sole physical custody of the children until
         further Order of Court is terminated. The July 16, 2021
         Custody Order of the Honorable Melissa S. Sterling, as
         amended, shall again be in full force and effect.

         7. The parties have agreed that any significant others shall
         stay in the car during custody transfers at the police station.

         8. All other requests for relief by Father and Mother, in their
         written petitions and as clarified at the hearing, are DENIED.

         9. This Order resolves all outstanding matters.

(Order, 4/27/22, at ¶¶ 2-4) (emphases omitted, citation formatting provided).

On May 5, 2022, Father filed a timely notice of appeal together with a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal.             See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

      Father raises the following issues on appeal.

         1. The Judge erred as a matter of law by finding Plaintiff in
         contempt.

         2. The Judge erred as a matter of law by granting
         Defendant’s Emergency Petition filed April 21, 2022 (Seq.
         #466) and Defendant’s Amended Emergency Petition for
         Contempt of Custody and Special Relief filed on April 22,
         2022 (Seq. #471).

         3. The Judge erred as a matter of law by imposing
         mandatory jail time if monetary sanctions were not paid or
         60 hours of community service was not completed by June
         27, 2022.

         4. The Judge erred as a matter of law by not holding a
         hearing to review the reasonableness of the sanctions and
         Father’s ability to pay monetary fine.

                                      -8-
J-A26022-22

       5. The Judge erred as a matter of law by not placing Father
       on a payment plan to pay any monetary sanctions.

       6. The Judge erred as a matter of law by ordering him to be
       on probation.

       7. The Judge erred as a matter of law by fining him more
       than the allowed amount pursuant to the rules or 23 Pa.C.S.
       5323(g).

       8. The Judge erred as a matter of law by failing to find
       Defendant in contempt of the July 16, 2021 Order, April 5,
       2022 Order and April 19, 2022 Order.

       9. The Judge erred as a matter of law by denying Plaintiff’s
       Emergency Motion filed on April 22, 2022 (Seq. #469).

       10. The Judge erred as a matter of law by denying Plaintiff
       the right to have his witnesses testify at the April 27, 2022
       hearing.

       11. The Judge erred as a matter of law by denying Plaintiff
       the right to show the Court Plaintiff’s video exhibits as well
       as to submit his video exhibits into the record at the April
       27, 2022 hearing.

       12. The Judge erred as a matter of law by
       modifying/amending/altering and/or clarifying the July 16,
       2021 Custody Order without prior notice and where there
       was no pending Petition to Modify Custody heard at the
       hearing.

       13. The Judge erred as a matter of law by
       modifying/amending/altering and/or clarifying the July 16,
       2021 Custody Order by putting in its April 27, 2022 Order
       an amendment NOT agreed to by the parties.

       14. The Judge erred as a matter of law by providing Mother
       makeup time with the parties’ children.

       15. The Judge erred as a matter of law by failing to provide
       Father make up time with the parties’ children.

                                   -9-
J-A26022-22

           16. The Judge erred as a matter of law by failing to recuse
           himself from the case.

           17. Appellant reserves the right to file an amended concise
           statement.

(Father’s Brief at 1-3).1

        Our scope and standard of review are well settled. “When considering

an appeal from an [o]rder holding a party in contempt for failure to comply

with a court [o]rder, our scope of review is narrow: we will reverse only upon

a showing the court abused its discretion.” Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230,

1234 (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting Hopkins v. Byes, 954 A.2d 654, 655-56

(Pa.Super. 2008)). Additionally, we must consider that:

           Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its
           process.     The contempt power is essential to the
           preservation of the court’s authority and prevents the
           administration of justice from failing into disrepute. When
           reviewing an appeal from a contempt order, the appellate
           court must place great reliance upon the discretion of the
           trial judge.

Habjan      v.   Habjan,     73   A.3d    630,     637   (Pa.Super.   2013)   (quoting

Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303, 307 (Pa.Super. 2002)).

        The general rule in proceedings for civil contempt is that “the burden of

proof rests with the complaining party to demonstrate, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that the defendant is in noncompliance with a court order.” Id.

(quoting Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 488 (Pa.Super. 2001)).

           To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must
____________________________________________

1   We reproduce Father’s issues verbatim.

                                          - 10 -
J-A26022-22

        prove certain distinct elements: (1) that the contemnor had
        notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to
        have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the
        contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) that the
        contemnor acted with wrongful intent.

Id. (quoting Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478, 486 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal

denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007)).

     After finding a party in contempt for failure to comply with a custody

order, the party may be punished by one or more of the following:

        (i) Imprisonment for a period of not more than six months.

        (ii) A fine of not more than $500.

        (iii) Probation for a period of not more than six months.

        (iv) An order for nonrenewal, suspension or denial of
        operating privilege under section 4355 (relating to denial or
        suspension of licenses).

        (v) Counsel fees and costs.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(g)(1)(i)-(v). “The purpose of civil contempt is to compel

performance of lawful orders, and in some instances, to compensate the

complainant for the loss sustained.     When contempt is civil, a court must

impose conditions on the sentence so as to permit the contemnor to purge

himself.” Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014, 1018 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal

denied, 578 Pa. 709, 853 A.2d 362 (2004) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted).

     Furthermore, “[t]he admission or exclusion of evidence...is within the

sound discretion of the trial court.”   In re K.C.F., 928 A.2d 1046, 1050

                                   - 11 -
J-A26022-22

(Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 705, 936 A.2d 41 (2007) (quoting

McClain v. Welker, 761 A.2d 155, 156 (Pa.Super. 2000)).           “An abuse of

discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the

court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by

the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality,

prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused.” A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945

A.2d 744, 749 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d

107, 111 (Pa.Super. 2007)).

      Finally, we review a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to recuse for

an abuse of discretion. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 892 (Pa.Super. 2014). “We

recognize that our trial judges are ‘honorable, fair and competent,’ and

although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing

that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside

impartially.” Id. (citation omitted). “It is the burden of the party requesting

recusal to produce evidence establishing bias, prejudice or unfairness which

raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability to preside impartially….”

Vargo v. Schwartz, 940 A.2d 459, 471 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting In re

S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 808 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 751, 892

A.2d 824 (2005)).

      After a thorough review of the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and

the relevant law, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s

determination. See In re A.D., supra; Harcar, supra; In re K.C.F., supra.

                                     - 12 -
J-A26022-22

Consequently, we affirm the order finding Father in contempt and declining to

find Mother in contempt for the reasons stated in the opinion that the

Honorable Henry S. Hilles, III, entered on August 8, 2022.

      Specifically, Judge Hilles explained that the trial court did not err in

finding Father in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s orders. The

court explained that Father’s petitions to modify the custody schedule over

the Passover holiday were denied, the final denial by order issued April 19,

2022, which specifically stated that the parties must “strictly comply with the

holiday schedule” set forth in the July 16, 2021 custody order.            (Order,

4/19/22). The court observed that it did not err when it later found Father in

contempt of court after Father ignored the court’s clear and unambiguous

orders and kept the Children for the evenings of April 20th and 21st. (See Trial

Court Opinion at 8-10).

      Additionally, Judge Hilles explained that the court’s sanctions for

Father’s contemptuous behavior were appropriate.         The court noted that

Father has been repeatedly warned about his contemptuous actions in

disobeying court orders, but his behavior has not changed. It explained that

the purpose of these sanctions was to coerce Father into complying with future

court orders, which is in the best interest of Children. (Id. at 10-12).

      Judge Hilles explained that the trial court did not err in not finding

Mother in contempt. Specifically, the court noted that the testimony from the

hearing did not support a conclusion that Mother was in contempt of any order.

                                     - 13 -
J-A26022-22

Rather, the evidence supported Mother’s position that she was trying to work

within and comply with the applicable custody orders. (Id. at 12-13).

      Concerning Father’s claims that the court erred in denying his petition

to prohibit Mother’s boyfriend from being around Children and at custody

exchanges, Judge Hilles explained that Mother credibly testified that she does

not have a boyfriend, nor did she ever bring one to custody exchanges. (Id.

at 13). The court further stated that it did not err by addressing this issue

and including the parties’ agreed upon language—that significant others shall

remain in the car during custody exchanges—in its April 27, 2022 order.

Additionally, the court explained that this provision did not modify custody

and was agreed to by Father. (Id. at 16-17).

      With respect to Father’s claims concerning the admissibility of witness

testimony and audio recordings at the hearing, Judge Hilles explained that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the recordings were

irrelevant. The court noted that the offered testimony of Father’s mother was

hearsay and was otherwise not relevant. The court also found that Father’s

girlfriend’s offered testimony—that Father had not received the court’s April

22, 2022 order—was not relevant because Father was not being considered

for contempt of that order. (Id. at 14-16).

      Judge Hilles noted that the court did not err when it denied Father’s

claims that he was entitled to makeup time. Specifically, the court explained

that its finding concerning makeup time was issued as part of the contempt

                                    - 14 -
J-A26022-22

proceeding to prevent Father from continuing to violate the July 16, 2021

custody order and was not a modification of custody. (Id. at 17-18).

     Finally, Judge Hilles explained that the court did not err when it denied

Father’s request for recusal.    After an independent analysis, the court

determined it could and would be fair and impartial to both sides, and it

determined that there was no appearance of impropriety or issues involving

public confidence in the judicial system. (Id. at 18-19). As to the foregoing

points, we adopt Judge Hilles’ reasoning as our own.

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/9/2023

                                   - 15 -
 Circulated 12/20/2022
2019-06877-0559        02:07 Page
                   Opinion,  PM 1
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 2
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 3
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 4
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 5
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 6
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 7
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 8
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 9
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 10
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 11
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 12
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 13
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 14
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 15
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 16
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 17
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 18
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 19
2019-06877-0559 Opinion, Page 20