Commonwealth Ex Rel. JIULIANTE v. County of Erie

631 A.2d 1122, 158 Pa. Commw. 508, 1993 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 595

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 23, 1993
• Docket: 2795 C.D. 1992
• Status: Published

Opinions

PALLADINO, Judge.

The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County (Court) appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County¹ (trial court) granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the County of Erie (County). For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

This action stems from a dispute between the Court and the County as to whether the County’s anti-nepotism policy was applicable to court-related employees. In 1982, the Erie County Personnel Code was amended to include an anti-nepotism policy which stated that where two County employees are from the same immediate family, one member of the family may not supervise any other member of the same family. The issue of the policy’s application to court-appointed employees arose on October 3, 1984 when the Court assigned Thomas P. Antolik (Antolik) to the position of Chief Juvenile Probation Officer. In this capacity, Antolik had supervisory control over his younger brother, Andrew Antolik, a Juvenile Probation Officer. The County refused to reclassify Antolik claiming that the appointment violated the nepotism policy.

Because the County refused reclassification, the Court issued an ex-parte order stating that the County Personnel Code was inapplicable to appointments made by any member of the judiciary, and appointing Antolik to the position of Chief Juvenile Probation Officer.

The County appealed the ex-parte order to the commonwealth court. Without consulting the County concerning its responsibility for the payment of the Court’s legal fees, the Court hired the firm of Duane, Morris & Heckscher (Firm) to represent its interests in the appeal. In a published opinion and order, this court held that the anti-nepotism policy was constitutionally inapplicable to court-appointed personnel because it impinged upon the judiciary’s right to hire, fire and supervise its employees. In the Matter of the Appointment of Thomas P. Antolik (Antolik I), 93 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 258, 501 A.2d 697 (1985).

Following termination of the appeal process, the Firm submitted a bill for services to the Court, which then submitted the bill to the County. The County refused to pay the bill, asserting that the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) was the responsible party. AOPC denied responsibility and refused payment. Thereafter, the Court issued a second ex-parte order directing the County to pay the bill.

The County appealed the second order to the commonwealth court and the Court again retained the Firm to represent its interests. In a published opinion and order, this court held that the ex-parte order of the Court violated due process and did not constitute an adjudication of rights. In the Matter of the Appointment of Thomas P. Antolik (Antolik II), 124 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 5, 555 A.2d 273 (1992), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 523 Pa. 637, 565 A.2d 446 (1989). Therefore, we remanded the matter for adversarial proceedings. Id.

On March 8, 1992, the Court filed a complaint in mandamus in the court of common pleas, seeking an order directing the County to pay for legal services incurred by the Court in defending itself against the application of the County anti-nepotism policy to court-related employees and in seeking to impose the counsel fees upon the County.

On December 2, 1992, the County filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the supreme court’s decision in Lavelle v. Koch, 532 Pa. 631, 617 A.2d 319 (1992), controlled the outcome of the present action and required judgment in favor of the County as a matter of law. The trial court agreed and granted the County’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal to this court,² the issue presented is whether the trial court erred in concluding that a county is not responsible for the payment of legal fees incurred by the judges of that county in challenging the application of a county policy to court employees.³

A grant of summary judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035(b) is appropriate only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Marks v. Tasman, 527 Pa. 132, 589 A.2d 205 (1991). In ruling on such a motion we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

The Court asserts two arguments in support of its position. First, the Court urges us to conclude that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on Lavelle was erroneous because the facts of Lavelle are distinguishable from those of the present action. Second, the court argues that this case warrants the exercise of our equitable powers to award attorneys’ fees and interest because, much to the embarrassment of the judges who hired it, the Firm has not been paid a single penny for its successful efforts in challenging the County’s unconstitutional actions.

With respect to its first argument, the Court specifically asserts that the instant action is distinguishable from Lavelle because in Antolik I, this court determined that the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County faced a genuine threat to the constitutional integrity of the court system, something which the supreme court concluded did not exist in Lavelle. Therefore, the Court argues that the supreme court’s holding with respect to attorneys’ fees and costs in Lavelle is inapplicable to the present action. We disagree.

In Lavelle, the president judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County (P.J. Lavelle) brought a mandamus action against the county seeking to compel the county commissioners, sitting as the county salary board, to appropriate and disburse funds for county court employee salaries. In addition, P.J. Lavelle sought to impose the legal costs associated with bringing the action upon the county.

The supreme court concluded that P.J. Lavelle had failed to meet his burden of proving that the proposed salaries were reasonably necessary to attract and retain qualified personnel, and therefore, the supreme court could not determine whdther the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County faced a genuine threat to the integrity of its court system.

With respect to the issue of responsibility for the payment of the legal costs associated with litigating the action against the county, P.J. Lavelle argued that the judiciary’s powers to compel funding are meaningless unless the legislative branch is obligated to cover the costs associated with bringing an action in mandamus. The supreme court denied his request for attorneys’ fees and costs, stating that Judge Lavelle’s argument, “ignores the fact that any member of the judiciary can turn to the [AOPC] for ‘legal services and, when appropriate, representation by legal counsel.’ Pa.J.R.A. No. 505(15).” Lavelle, 532 Pa. at 638, 617 A.2d at 323.

The supreme court’s decision in Lavelle was reaffirmed in Snyder v. Snyder, 533 Pa. 203, 620 A.2d 1133 (1993). In Snyder, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County sought to compel the county commissioners to provide funding for the judiciary. Again, the supreme court determined that the judges failed to meet their burden of proving that the requests were reasonably necessary for the administration of justice. With respect to payment of legal fees, the judges and amicus argued that the costs associated with bringing a suit against the county are themselves reasonably necessary for the proper function of the court. The supreme court concluded that this argument was substantively identical to the one raised in Lavelle and denied the request for attorneys fees and costs.

At the inception of the present action, two issues were presented. The first was resolved in Antolik I, wherein this court concluded that the application of the anti-nepotism policy to court-appointed employees created an unconstitutional result. The sole issue remaining is whether the County is the party responsible for payment of the Court’s legal fees and costs incurred in litigating the first issue.

The Court argues that the County’s refusal to provide funds to pay for the legal fees and costs associated with pursuing the action against the County is itself a genuine threat to the administration of justice. Moreover, the Court argues that the statutory scheme for court funding provides the judges with the statutory power to compel reimbursement by the County.

We conclude that these arguments are simply restatements of those asserted and rejected by the supreme court in Lavelle and Snyder. In both of those cases, the supreme court clearly indicated that payment of legal fees by an adverse party is an issue separate and distinct from that which addresses whether the legislative branch has provided adequate funding for the judicial branch. In the present action, the County did not deny funding to the Court, it denied responsibility for payment of counsel fees. Therefore, we conclude that the Court’s assertions concerning the statutory scheme of court funding and the judiciary’s inherent power to compel funding when the legislature’s denial of funds genuinely threatens the administration of justice are inapplicable.

As the supreme court has consistently held, “in this Commonwealth, a litigant cannot recover counsel fees from an adverse party unless there is express statutory authorization, a clear agreement of the parties, or some other established exception. Chatham Communications Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01, 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975); citing Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280, 210 A.2d 890, 892 (1965).” Lavelle, 532 Pa. at 638, 617 A.2d at 323.

Because none of the above-stated criteria have been met, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the County is not responsible for the payment of counsel fees and costs incurred by the Court in this matter.

Moreover, we reject the Court’s argument that this case warrants the exercise of our equitable powers. The supreme court decisions in Lavelle and Snyder are binding precedent upon this court and cannot be disregarded simply by characterizing the relief requested as equitable.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the County is affirmed.

ORDER

AND NOW, September 23, 1993, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

1 . Senior Judge Breene of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County was appointed by the Supreme Court to specially preside over this matter.

2 . Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting summary judgment is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed or whether the trial court abused its discretion. Lyons v. City of Pittsburgh, 137 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 330, 586 A.2d 469, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 527 Pa. 670, 593 A.2d 845 (1991).

3 . At oral argument, counsel for the Court asked this court to address: (1) whether he should be paid for his services; and (2) if so, who is responsible for payment, the County or AOPC. We note, however, that despite the answer to the first question, the issue of whether some entity other than the County is liable for payment of the Court’s counsel fees is not before us. AOPC is not a defendant in this action, and therefore, we decline to make decisions regarding AOPC’s responsibilities with respect to payment of the legal fees in question.