Court Opinion

ID: 9960577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 16:13:07.243449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:38.780040
License: Public Domain

J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  GREGORY LUKASIK                              :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SARAH A. SCOTCHLAS                           :     No. 884 MDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 2021-40676

    GREGORY LUKASIK                            :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                  v.                           :
                                               :
                                               :
    SARAH A. SCOTCHLAS                         :
                                               :
                                               :     No. 885 MDA 2023
    APPEAL OF: BRENDA M. KOBAL,                :
    ESQUIRE                                    :

                 Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 2021-40676

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                     FILED: APRIL 16, 2024

       In this cross-appeal, Gregory Lukasik (“Father”) and Brenda M. Kobal,

Esq. (“Attorney Kobal”), each appeal from the trial court’s May 5, 2023

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

amended order that, inter alia, denied the petition filed by Sarah A. Scotchlas

(“Mother”) to remove Attorney Kobal as guardian ad litem (“GAL”); removed

Attorney Kobal as GAL to avoid the appearance of impropriety because Mother

initiated a civil lawsuit against Attorney Kobal; directed Mother to pay counsel

fees to Father and Attorney Kobal; and found Mother’s then-counsel, Ryan

Campbell, Esq. (“Attorney Campbell”) in contempt and set a purge condition.

After careful review, we reverse the order, in part, to the extent it directs

Mother alone to pay counsel fees to Father and Attorney Kobal, and remand

this matter for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.1

       The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this case as follows:

              This case was initiated by Father’s complaint to
              establish paternity and for genetic testing for one
              minor child, G.M.S.[.] Upon [Mother] presenting the
              minor child for testing, [Father] withdrew [his]
              complaint to establish paternity. On August 18, 2021,
              [Father] filed a complaint for custody. On October 12,
              2021, the parties appeared before custody master
              Chester M. Bestrycki for a conciliation conference. At
              that time the [trial court] issued an order dated
              October 12, 2021, by agreement of the parties,
              appointing [Attorney Kobal] as [GAL] for the minor
              child and establishing periods of custody for [Father].

              On November 5, 2021, [Father] filed a petition for
              emergency special relief and contempt. Based upon
____________________________________________

1 We note that Mother also appealed from the trial court’s May 5, 2023
amended order, which was docketed at No. 811 MDA 2023. This appeal was
ultimately dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2023 because Mother
failed to file a brief.

                                           -2-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

          the allegations raised in the petition, the Honorable
          Judge Munley issued an emergency order dated
          November 5, 2021, granting Father temporary sole
          legal and physical custody of the minor child. By
          agreement of the parties the Honorable Judge Munley
          entered an order dated November 22, 2021, granting
          [Father’s] petition for emergency special relief and
          contempt were held in abeyance, Mother was granted
          periods of professional supervised custody with the
          minor child, and the parties were to submit to a
          comprehensive psychological evaluation which was
          not based on self-reporting by Dr. Richard Fishbien.

          ....

          On May 11, 2022, [Mother] filed a petition [to remove]
          the [GAL]. [Mother’s] petition was continued upon the
          request of [Attorney Kobal] to retain counsel.

          The [trial court] proceeded with the hearing on
          [Father’s] second emergency petition for special relief
          and contempt. At the initiation of the hearing the GAL
          motioned to seal the record for the best interest of the
          child to prevent future emotional damage due to the
          nature of the allegations which had been raised by
          both parties. After no objection by [Mother’s] or
          [Father’s] counsel, the Honorable Judge Munley
          analyzed under the common law approach and
          cognizant of the Mental Health Procedure Act,
          determined it was in the best interests of the minor
          child as well as the privacy of the parties to seal the
          record. Subsequently an order was issued by the
          Honorable Judge Munley dated May 13, 2022, sealing
          the record. Following an evidentiary hearing, the
          Honorable Judge Munley found Mother in contempt
          and no sanctions were issued. [Father’s] second
          petition for emergency special relief was denied and
          [Mother’s] periods of supervised visitation with the
          minor child were reinstated.

          On June 13, 2022, the [trial court] heard testimony
          on [Mother’s] petition to remove the GAL. At the
          conclusion of a full evidentiary hearing, the Honorable
          Judge Munley denied [Mother’s] motion on the record

                                   -3-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

          holding, “And, with regard to the Motion to Remove
          the Guardian Ad Litem, that is denied. The Court
          found that there was no evidence, in this case, that
          was biased on the part of the Guardian Ad Litem.”
          The Honorable Judge Munley issued memorandum
          and order dated September 22, 2022, denying
          [Mother’s] first petition to remove the Guardian ad
          Litem as [Mother] did not prove that the Guardian ad
          Litem was acting with bias, ill-will, or prejudice
          toward her.

          The [trial court] began to take testimony on [Father’s]
          amended complaint seeking sole legal and physical
          custody of the minor child, [Father’s] first petition for
          emergency special relief and contempt[,] and
          [Father’s] first and second petition for special relief.
          The [trial court] heard testimony from the parties over
          the period of June 13 and June 14, 2022. The hearing
          was scheduled to continue September 29, 2022,
          however [Mother] refused to participate in the hearing
          and left the courtroom. The Honorable Judge Munley
          granted Father’s relief on a temporary basis and
          Mother’s periods of supervised visitation were
          suspended. All outstanding petitions were held in
          abeyance.

          On January 26, 2023, Attorney Campbell entered his
          appearance on behalf of [Mother]. On January 31,
          2023, [Attorney Campbell] filed a second motion to
          remove the GAL [on Mother’s behalf]. On February 2,
          2023, the GAL filed a motion to dismiss and/or to
          strike [Mother’s] motion to remove [Attorney Kobal]
          as [GAL]; GAL’s motion for a protective order and
          motion to stay [Mother’s] motion to remove [Attorney
          Kobal] as [GAL;] and to award fee pending resolution
          of [GAL’s] motion to dismiss and/or to strike
          [Mother’s] motion to remove. On February 21, 2023,
          [Father] filed for a counterclaim for counsel fees. On
          March 8, 2023, the GAL filed a petition for counsel
          fees. On April 14, 2023, [Mother] initiated a lawsuit
          against the GAL at civil docket 2023-CV-1573. The
          matters were held in abeyance pending oral argument
          to determine if [Mother’s] motion to remove the GAL

                                    -4-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

              was barred upon the doctrine of res judicata and
              collateral estoppel.

Trial court opinion, 5/5/23 at 1-4 (citations, footnotes, and extraneous

capitalization omitted).

       On April 18, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Mother’s second

petition to remove Attorney Kobal as GAL and Attorney Kobal’s and Father’s

counterclaims for counsel fees. Following this hearing, the trial court entered

an amended order on May 5, 2023, denying Mother’s petition to remove

Attorney Kobal as GAL; removing Attorney Kobal as GAL to avoid the

appearance of impropriety because Mother had initiated a civil lawsuit against

her; directing Mother to pay $8,950.00 in counsel fees to Father and

$10,482.40 in counsel fees to Attorney Kobal; and finding Attorney Campbell

in contempt and setting a purge condition. See trial court amended order,

5/5/23 at §§ 1-5. The trial court authored a comprehensive opinion in support

of its May 5, 2023 order. See trial court opinion, 5/5/23 at 5-10.

       On June 2, 2023, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal at No. 811 MDA

2023 that was ultimately dismissed with prejudice by this Court after Mother

failed to file an appellate brief. On June 16, 2023, Father and Attorney Kobal

filed timely cross-appeals, at Nos. 884 MDA 2023 and 885 MDA 2023,

respectively.2

____________________________________________

2  Father, Attorney        Kobal,   and    the   trial   court   have   complied   with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -5-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

      On August 2, 2023, this Court issued an order directing the parties to

show cause as to why the appeal from the trial court’s May 5, 2023 order

should not be quashed as interlocutory. Father responded to the Rule to Show

Cause order on August 9, 2023, and Attorney Kobal responded on August 10,

2023. On September 15, 2023, this Court entered an order discharging the

Rule to Show Cause order and directing that the appeal shall proceed solely

as to the order’s award of counsel fees and its findings related to contempt.

Per curiam order, 9/15/23 at ¶¶ 3-6; see Hanbicki v. Leader, 294 A.3d

1234, 1239 (Pa.Super. 2023) (holding that an award of counsel fees is a

sufficient sanction to render an order final and appealable) (citation omitted).

      Father raises the following issue for our review:

            1.    Did the trial court err as a matter of law in
                  ordering [Mother] to pay attorney’s fees to
                  [Father] rather than [Attorney Campbell],
                  individually and/or the law firm of Rothenberg
                  and Campbell [(hereinafter “the Law Firm”)]?

Father’s brief at 4 (No. 884 MDA 2023).

      Attorney Kobal indicates that she does not oppose Father’s argument

and is joining his brief. See “Letter of [Attorney Kobal] Joining Brief,” 1/12/24

(No. 884 MDA 2023).

      Similarly, Attorney Kobal raises the following issue for our review:

            1.    Whether the trial court erred by ordering
                  [Mother] to pay [Attorney Kobal’s] counsel
                  fees[,] instead of [Attorney Campbell] and/or
                  [the Law Firm][?]

Attorney Kobal’s brief at 2 (No. 885 MDA 2023).

                                      -6-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

         Father also indicates that he is joining the argument raised by Attorney

Kobal in the above-mentioned matter. See “Letter of [Father] Joining Brief,”

1/5/24 (No. 885 MDA 2023).

         The crux of Father and Attorney Kobal’s arguments on appeal is that the

trial court abused its discretion in directing Mother to pay Father’s and

Attorney Kobal’s counsel fees. Father’s brief at 10; Attorney Kobal’s brief at

18.      Both Father and Attorney Kobal contend that Attorney Campbell,

individually, as well as the Law Firm, should be held responsible for the

payment of counsel fees rather than Mother because his frivolous filing of the

second petition to remove Attorney Kobal as GAL was done in bad faith and

was “dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious.” Father’s brief at 11, Attorney Kabal’s

brief at 21. For the following reasons, we agree.

         “Our standard of review of an award of counsel fees is well-settled: we

will not disturb a trial court’s determination absent an abuse of discretion. A

trial court has abused its discretion if it failed to follow proper legal principles

or misapplied the law.” Moyer v. Leone, 260 A.3d 245, 252 (Pa.Super. 2021)

(citation omitted). This Court has repeatedly recognized that “[t]he relentless

pursuit of a claim which plainly lacks legal merit warrants an award of counsel

fees.”     In re Barnes Foundation, 74 A.3d 129, 136 (Pa.Super. 2013)

(citation omitted), appeal denied, 80 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied,

572 U.S. 1116 (2014).

                                       -7-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

      Instantly, the Honorable Trish Corbett of the Lackawanna County Court

of Common Pleas set forth the following rationale in support of her decision to

order Mother to pay Father’s and Attorney Kobal’s counsel fees pursuant to

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5339:

             [Mother’s] second petition to remove the [GAL] was
             filed without legal merit as the allegations in
             [Mother’s] 262-paragraph petition predominantly
             focused on Attorney Kobal’s conduct in previous cases
             and not the case at hand. The facts which were raised
             regarding this custody case were previously litigated
             through a full evidently hearing and denied by the
             Honorable Judge Munley.         [Mother’s] pursuit to
             remove the GAL without the legal merit has risen to
             the level of vexatious and repetitive. Thus, this Court
             [finds Father and Attorney Kobal] shall be entitled to
             legal fees to be paid for by [Mother].

Trial court opinion, 5/5/23 at 7-8.

      Upon review, we agree with both Father and Attorney Kobal that the

trial court abused its discretion in ordering Mother to bear full responsibility

for the payment of their counsel fees, rather than imposing this sanction

directly on Attorney Campbell and the Law Firm.

      We find this matter is analogous to our Supreme Court’s recent decision

in County of Fulton v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 292 A.3d 974 (Pa.

2023), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 283 (2023). In this decision,

our Supreme Court remanded this matter for further proceedings to impose

counsel fees directly on the attorney representing the opposing party, County

of Fulton.   Id. at 1021.    The County of Fulton Court reasoned that in

                                      -8-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

situations where counsel has engaged in dilatory, obdurate, vexatious, and

bad-faith conduct, it would be unjust for a client to fully bear the costs:

            In sum, we find that Attorney Carroll, both in tandem
            with and also independently of his clients, is guilty of
            relentlessly dilatory, obdurate, vexatious, and bad-
            faith conduct before this Court and the Special Master,
            especially, but not exclusively, during these sanction
            proceedings. Consequently, it would be inequitable
            that the County alone should bear the Secretary's
            costs. Attorney Carroll, too, should be sanctioned in
            the form of joint and several responsibility for the
            Secretary’s counsel fees during the period for which
            he shares responsibility for the misconduct.

Id. at 1018.

      In reaching this conclusion, the Fulton Court defined the terms

“dilatory, obdurate, and vexatious” as follows:

            Vexatious conduct is without reasonable or probable
            cause or excuse; harassing; annoying. [O]bdurate
            conduct may be defined in this context as stubbornly
            persistent in wrongdoing. Conduct is dilatory where
            the record demonstrates that counsel displayed a lack
            of diligence that delayed proceedings unnecessarily
            and caused additional legal work.

Id. at 1014 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).

      Likewise, in the instant matter, we find that Attorney Campbell engaged

in dilatory, obdurate, vexatious, and bad-faith conduct by filing a 56-page,

262-paragraph second petition to remove Attorney Kobal as GAL on January

31, 2023, less than 9 months after the filing of Mother’s first removal petition

and while the underlying custody case was already in progress. The record

reveals that this second petition had no basis in law or fact and raised no

                                      -9-
J-S08032-24
J-S08033-24

additional new claims, and was filed by Attorney Campbell with full knowledge

that Mother’s first petition to remove the GAL was denied by the trial court

following an extensive evidentiary hearing.

      Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s May 5, 2023

amended order, in part, to the extent it directs Mother to bear full

responsibility to pay $8,950.00 in counsel fees to Father and $10,482.40 in

counsel fees to Attorney Kobal.        We remand this matter for further

proceedings to determine Attorney Campbell/the Law Firm’s joint and several

responsibility for these counsel fees during the period for which they share

responsibility for the misconduct.

      Order reversed, in part. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with

this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/16/2024

                                     - 10 -