Commonwealth v. Angelo

Monroe County Court of Common Pleas

Commonwealth v. Angelo

18 Pa. D. & C.3d 795, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 524

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County

DecidedJanuary 6, 1981

Docketno. 668-1978

StatusPublished

This text of 18 Pa. D. & C.3d 795 (Commonwealth v. Angelo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Angelo, 18 Pa. D. & C.3d 795, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, S.J.,

We have been requested by defendant, John R. Angelo, to determine the amount of restitution he is required to make to United Penn Bank as a result of his criminal activity. The issue is partly factual and partly one of law. After full hearing on the matter, we are of the opinion and so find that the loss sustained by the United Penn Bank, exclusive of coun[796]*796sel fees, is $9,482.81. The United Penn Bank has expended $1,746.82 for counsel fees and we must determine if defendant is liable to make restitution of these fees.

The Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(c), Restitution, provides: “In addition to the alternatives set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the court may order the defendant to compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury he has sustained.” Thus the sentence code offers no enlightment on the precise issue before us.

In Chatham Communications, Inc. v. Gen. Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300, 301, 344 A. 2d 837 (1975), the Supreme Court stated:

“ ‘ “Over and over again we have decided there can be no recovery for counsel fees from the adverse party to a cause, in the absence of express statutory allowance of the same. . . .”, Smith v. Equitable Trust Co., 215 Pa. 413, 417, 64 A. 591, 592 (1906), or clear agreement by the parties, Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 404 Pa. 541, 548, 173 A. 2d 109, 113 (1961), or some other established exception, see Hempstead v. Meadville Theological School, 286 Pa. 493, 134 A. 103, 49 A.L.R. 1145 (1926).’ Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280, 210 A. 2d 890, 892(1965). Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271, 210 A. 2d 882, 886-7 (1965).”

In the absence of express statutory authority or Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule allowing restitution of counsel fees, we feel we are mandated to apply the rule as stated in Chatham, supra, to the issue before us and deny restitution of counsel fees.

ORDER

And now, January 6, 1981, the court hereby fixes [797]*797the amount of restitution at the sum of $9,482.81 and directs defendant to make restitution in that amount.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAMS, S.J.,

We have been requested by defendant, John R. Angelo, to determine the amount of restitution he is required to make to United Penn Bank as a result of his criminal activity. The issue is partly factual and partly one of law. After full hearing on the matter, we are of the opinion and so find that the loss sustained by the United Penn Bank, exclusive of coun[796]*796sel fees, is $9,482.81. The United Penn Bank has expended $1,746.82 for counsel fees and we must determine if defendant is liable to make restitution of these fees.

The Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(c), Restitution, provides: “In addition to the alternatives set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the court may order the defendant to compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury he has sustained.” Thus the sentence code offers no enlightment on the precise issue before us.

In Chatham Communications, Inc. v. Gen. Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300, 301, 344 A. 2d 837 (1975), the Supreme Court stated:

“ ‘ “Over and over again we have decided there can be no recovery for counsel fees from the adverse party to a cause, in the absence of express statutory allowance of the same. . . .”, Smith v. Equitable Trust Co., 215 Pa. 413, 417, 64 A. 591, 592 (1906), or clear agreement by the parties, Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 404 Pa. 541, 548, 173 A. 2d 109, 113 (1961), or some other established exception, see Hempstead v. Meadville Theological School, 286 Pa. 493, 134 A. 103, 49 A.L.R. 1145 (1926).’ Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280, 210 A. 2d 890, 892(1965). Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271, 210 A. 2d 882, 886-7 (1965).”

In the absence of express statutory authority or Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule allowing restitution of counsel fees, we feel we are mandated to apply the rule as stated in Chatham, supra, to the issue before us and deny restitution of counsel fees.

ORDER

And now, January 6, 1981, the court hereby fixes [797]*797the amount of restitution at the sum of $9,482.81 and directs defendant to make restitution in that amount.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Pa. D. & C.3d 795, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-angelo-pactcomplmonroe-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack