Court Opinion

ID: 9387668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 17:07:38.304834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.964421
License: Public Domain

J-A28030-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 AGING                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                             :
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
                                             :
 ROBERTA KNOX                                :
 -----------------------------------------   :   No. 312 EDA 2022
 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR                :
 AGING                                       :
                                             :
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
                                             :
 GERALDINE GERR                              :
                                             :
                                             :
 APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS                  :

            Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                          No(s): 191203044,
                              191203045

 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 AGING                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                             :
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
                                             :
 ROBERTA KNOX                                :
 -----------------------------------------   :   No. 314 EDA 2022
 PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR                :
 AGING                                       :
                                             :
                                             :
              v.                             :
                                             :
                                             :
 GERALDINE GERR                              :
J-A28030-22

                                                 :
                                                 :
    APPEAL OF: JACINTH ROBERTS                   :

              Appeal from the Order Dated December 20, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 191203044,
                                191203045

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED APRIL 18, 2023

       Jacinth Roberts appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common

Pleas of Philadelphia County, finding her in contempt and imposing monetary

sanctions.1 Upon review, we affirm.

       In December of 2019, the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging (PCA)

initiated the above-captioned actions on an emergency basis, seeking

information regarding the whereabouts, health, and well-being of Roberta

Knox and Geraldine Gerr, who resided at Roberts’ home.2 Following hearings,

the trial court issued several orders that required Roberts to cooperate with

PCA’s investigation by, inter alia, providing PCA access to her home for the

purpose of interviewing Knox and Gerr, and enjoining Roberts from interfering

with PCA’s investigation.

____________________________________________

1Roberts filed two separate notices of appeal from the trial court’s order, one
at each of the above-captioned dockets, in compliance with Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). On April 5, 2022, this Court consolidated
Roberts’ appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.

2These matters were both originally before the Honorable Edward Wright.
However, the matters were later transferred to the Honorable Joshua Roberts.
We refer to both jurists as “trial court” throughout this memorandum.

                                           -2-
J-A28030-22

       In May of 2020, PCA filed a motion seeking additional relief, alleging

that Roberts was no longer permitting PCA to access her home to speak with

Knox and Gerr, and that Roberts was in total noncompliance with the trial

court’s orders. After administrative delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic,

the trial court issued an order, in both cases, that reaffirmed Roberts’

obligations pursuant to the prior orders. Additionally, the trial court ordered

Roberts be deposed, within 30 days, so that PCA could question Roberts under

oath on the whereabouts, health, and safety of Gerr and Knox.3

       On May 26, 2021, PCA filed a petition for contempt, contending that

Roberts had failed to comply with all prior court orders. On July 20, 2021, the

trial court conducted a remote hearing, via Zoom, for which Roberts did not

appear. The trial court issued a civil bench warrant directing the sheriff to

take Roberts into custody and bring her to court on August 6, 2021.            On

August 6, 2021, Roberts was brought before the trial court for a contempt

hearing.     Ultimately, the trial court required Roberts to appear for the

depositions that were previously ordered, and scheduled an additional

contempt hearing.

____________________________________________

3 At this time, for reasons unknown to this Court, the above-captioned cases
were not consolidated and the case involving Gerr was proceeding more
quickly. Nevertheless, after a hearing in the Knox matter in February of 2021,
the trial court issued a virtually identical order to the order in the Gerr matter.

On April 1, 2021, the cases were consolidated and all further action from the
trial court applied to both matters.

                                           -3-
J-A28030-22

     The trial court conducted the contempt hearing over three days, on

August 30, 2021, September 17, 2021, and September 28, 2021.                 After

considering the testimony, evidence, and arguments from both parties, the

trial court entered an order holding Roberts in contempt and directing PCA to

file a fee petition. See Order, 10/4/21. PCA complied, and Roberts filed a

response. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order directing Roberts to

“reimburse PCA the amount of $53,679.32, representing the fees and costs

PCA had to incur as a result of Roberts’ contumacious conduct.” Trial Court

Opinion, 4/27/22, at 7.

     Roberts filed these timely appeals and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.

     Roberts now raises the following issues:

     1. When the purpose of civil contempt is to coerce compliance with
     a court’s order, should a [t]rial [c]ourt grant a petition for
     contempt even after the respondent has fully complied with the
     order?

     2. When a [t]rial [c]ourt sends orders to an address where
     respondent no longer receives mail and respondent does not open
     letters from a business entity that she finds morally offensive,
     should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that respondent received notice of and
     intentionally violated a court order?

     3. When a petitioner already has the information sought by a court
     order and is permitted to serve by alternative service the order
     requiring compliance[,] should a [t]rial [c]ourt find that petitioner
     has suffered damages because of petitioner’s efforts to effect
     personal service of process?

     4. Should a [t]rial [c]ourt summarily grant attorney’s fees without
     a hearing on the evidentiary issues regarding the need for the

                                     -4-
J-A28030-22

        work performed, the reasonableness of the rates charged, and the
        respondent’s ability to pay?

Brief for Appellant, at 4.

        Preliminarily, we must address whether Roberts’ claims are properly

preserved for our review. We note that all of Roberts’ claims in her Statement

of Questions Involved are phrased as general policy questions.       It is well-

settled that this Court is an error-correcting court that leaves questions of

policy to the Supreme Court and the General Assembly. See Z.F.1 by and

through Parent v. Bethanna, 244 A.3d 282, 494 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“it is

not the institutional role of the Superior Court to make [] policy decisions”)

(citing Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019)). Moreover,

none of these policy questions was raised before the trial court and, therefore,

are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are

waived.”).    Furthermore, none of these questions is presented in Roberts’

argument section of her appellate brief and, thus, are waived on this basis as

well.    See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (requiring statement of questions involved

include all issues to be resolved on appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring

argument section be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be

argued); see also Commonwealth v. Fremd, 860 A.2d 515, 523-24 (Pa.

Super. 2004) (failure to raise argument issue in statement of questions

involved results in waiver).

        Nevertheless, Roberts’ argument section contains her challenge to

whether or not she received notice of the trial court’s various orders. This

claim was addressed by the trial court in its opinion, and it was similarly

                                     -5-
J-A28030-22

preserved in Roberts’ Rule 1925(b) concise statement. We agree with the trial

court, and, therefore, affirm its order and rely upon its well-reasoned opinion.

      As the trial court painstakingly detailed in its opinion, Roberts was

provided notice by two process servers over the course of approximately 18

months, one of whom identified Roberts in court as the woman who received

the court papers. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/22, at 9-10 (process server

identified Roberts in court; both process servers testified that Roberts would

remove posted court notices from property before process servers left

property, presented pictures of service into evidence, and testified Roberts

threw court papers in trash); id. at 10-13 (summarizing Roberts’ testimony

acknowledged that she received all court papers but ignored them because

“she does not like PCA”; Roberts does not read mail or papers addressed to

her from PCA; Roberts’ refusal to open court papers continued after sheriff

brought Roberts to August 6, 2020 hearing; Roberts blocked PCA and outside

counsel telephone numbers; and Roberts testified she refused to open emails

from PCA). Moreover, the trial court found Roberts to be completely lacking

in credibility.   See id. at 11, 13-14.     Finally, to the extent that Roberts

"complied” with any of the court orders, it is clear that Roberts has volitionally

ignored five court orders, including a sanction order, and the only

“compliance” was involuntary due to the sheriff taking her into custody. See

id. at 4-8, 9-10 (detailing Roberts’ contumacious behavior). Thus, Roberts’

revisionist history of the record warrants no relief, and we affirm the trial

court’s order on the basis of its well-reasoned and thorough opinion.         The

                                      -6-
J-A28030-22

parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further

proceedings.

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/18/2023

                                    -7-
Circulated 03/23/2023 12:09 PM